Daniel 9:27 blunder...

Katy-follower · May 12, 2013

Daniel 9:26: "And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people (Romans) of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary...."

Yes, Messiah was cut off (fulfilled)
The Romans then destroyed the temple (fulfilled)
The future prince who is to come (not yet fulfilled) - it says the people who destroyed the temple (Romans) are of the prince to come, so we know the future prince is someone from the revived Roman empire.

Continuing......

Daniel 9:27: "Then he (roman prince) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week (7 yrs);
But in the middle of the week (3.5 yrs)
he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

Some try to claim this prince in verse 27 is Jesus, when clearly it's the future 'man of sin'. How can one associate the workings of Antichrist with Jesus? This is awful.

gotime · May 12, 2013

Here is where your problem is.

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.

490 years are given to finish transgression etc. So God gives Daniel a time period. The whole point was to let the people know when the period would end. by taking the last 7 away from the rest you cast doubt on the whole prophecy. The measurement of times go from the beginning point. If you separate the end from the beginning then the explanation concerning time is null and useless.

They were given 490 years not 483 and then some unknown period between the last 7 years. This view destroys the meaning and purpose of the prophecy.

Dan 9:26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: 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 even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.

This verse is as you say, Jesus is the anointed one. but it says that after the threescore and two weeks He shall be cut off. not on but "after". then as you rightly said the Romans came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

now the next verse gives detail of how long after this would happen.
Dan 9:27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

In the midst of the week. interestingly enough Jesus was baptized in 27 ad as shown in Luke 3. His baptism was in the 15th year of Tiberius which we know from History was 27 ad. which is where the threescore and two weeks finish. but remember it said after. Jesus ministered for 3 and a half years after being baptized. then in 31 ad he was crucified. which meant an end to the sacrifices and offerings in the temple. This was shown by the vial ripping into two. By the way Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit in 27 ad the Apostle tells us this was his anointing.

But it was not till 3 and a half years after that in 34 ad that Stephen was stoned and Saul persecuted the church which caused the people of God to scatter and give the Gospel to the gentiles.

I should really use scripture to back all this but I don't have the time right now.

but notice then that the abomination that brings desolation comes next. Jesus spoke of this in the Gospels. but Luke again mentions what it is.

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Do a quick study and this in Matthew Jesus calls the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel. while this prophecy.

So clearly Daniel here has a vision which in the last two verses repeats and gives extra detail.

In fact what do you think Jesus meant when after being Baptized He said "The time is fulfilled"?

Blessings.

Bookreader · May 12, 2013

The Hebrew word usually translated as 'prince' is nagid
It generally doesn't mean prince as we understand it today.
Though it can mean prince it generally means a commander (military or otherwise). It can mean captain or governor. That type of thing.

So for those believing that the prophecy is already fulfilled in Daniel 9:26 the sack of the temple in 70AD was obviously lead by Tiberius Julius Alexander (who could be the 'prince') under Emperor Titus (who could be the 'prince').

I personally don't ascribe to preterism.

So I expect a European leader of some sort (military or otherwise) will fill the role.

Verse 27 is in two parts. The first could apply to someone good, while the second does not state that 'one who makes desolate' is the same as the person who confirms the covenant.

Also bear in mind that when Jesus returns it will not necessarily be the lovey-dovey time people sometimes assume. Revelation has a lot of horror associated with the events of the end days. It is mentioned several times that the wrath of God will be poured out.

All this eschatology is interesting but, tbh, one's salvation isn't based upon knowing what it all means. John received a vision, not a detailed plan. after all.

Laodicea · May 12, 2013

Daniel 9:25-26 KJV
(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.

According to these verses the prince is the Messiah then the people of the prince has to be Israel. So the question is when did Israel destroy the City? To answer that we need to look at history and the destruction of Israel at the time of Babylon.

Jeremiah 38:17-18, 23
(17) Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; and thou shalt live, and thine house:
(18) But if thou wilt not go forth to the king of Babylon's princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand.
(23) So they shall bring out all thy wives and thy children to the Chaldeans: and thou shalt not escape out of their hand, but shalt be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon: and thou shalt cause this city to be burned with fire.

Because of the sins of Israel God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed. God gave them a choice and because they did not choose the Lord then the Lord allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed. So the people of the prince destroying the city being Israel, It was destroyed because of the sins of Israel in rejecting the Messiah.

Of particular significance is the parable of Matthew 21:33-44 where Jesus reviewed the history of Israel in five stages:

Stage # 1: God sent servants to Israel to gather fruit in harvest season but Israel rejected God’s messengers (verses 34-35).
Stage # 2: God then sent more servants and Israel did the same with them (verse 36).
Stage # 3: God then sent them His own Son and they killed Him (verses 37-39).
Stage # 4: The wicked men who killed the Son were destroyed (verse 41)
Stage # 5: The kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles (verse 43; Acts
13:46-47).

These five stages of Israel’s history as described in Matthew 21:33-44 parallel very closely the same stages of Israel’s history as described in Daniel 9:

bob_w · May 12, 2013

Jesus had to be" anointed " according to Dan 9:24-27,and was done so at His baptism. This was done to fulfill Daniels prophecy. This was the start of His ministry or priesthood on earth. As you may Know, a man had to be 30 yrs old to become a priest in the temple and as our High Priest He was "fulfilling all righteousness". The fullness of time had come (463 yrs...7-sevens and 62-sevens). the next 7yrs represent the time that Christ confirms THE covenent with His people the Jews. In the middle of this 7yrs, Christ is sacrificed thus ending the need for the sacrificial system(He shall cause the sacrifice to end). The gospel and covenent was continued through mainly the Jewish nation until the final rejection of the gospel mission by the Jewish leaders as they stoned steven 3 1/2 years after the death of Christ....thus ending the 490 yr prophecy of Daniel. The gospel mission was then opened up to the gentiles as Paul was soon afterward converted.

Katy-follower · May 12, 2013

Laodicea said:

God does often use evil people to fulfill His purpose. It was the Romans that destroyed the temple in 70AD.

Laodicea · May 12, 2013

Katy-follower said:

Yes it was as Babylon destroyed it before. God allowed them to destroy it because of the sins of Israel

Katy-follower · May 12, 2013

Don't confuse the layout of those scriptures.

They say...

Jesus is cut off..... then afterwards the people of the prince (to come), not the people of the prince who came. It is talking future tense not past tense. Jesus was already cut off before the Romans that are mentioned in scripture as destroying the temple in 70AD. These Romans are of the future prince (the Roman prince).

SarahM777 · May 12, 2013

Katy-follower said:

UMM Katy,

Is the prince who is to come future to Daniel or is it to us? That DOES make a big difference. Didn't Titus destroy the temple? Titus was not yet born when Jesus died,neither was Nero. So both were yet to come. On verse 27 you're reading into it that the he is a Roman prince because that statement (Roman Prince) is not in that verse. Because the question is who ends the sacrifice and offering? After Jesus died and rose again what need is there for sacrifices,which was after 3 1/2 years? What purpose is there for sacrifices any more?

SarahM777 · May 12, 2013

You also have some question as to the correct translation of the last half of verse 27 which can also be rendered this way

Daniel 9:27 And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city.

And if this is the way the passage should be translated doesn't it change the understanding of it?

zone · May 12, 2013

hey Daniel: you are receiving this prophecy in about 539 B.C.

hundreds of years before Jesus would appear.
hundred of years before the temple and city would be destroyed by the romans (who weren't named as romans - they are called people)

the romans are a people who are hundreds of years in the future.
they will effect thy people, and thy holy city, far in your future. that's why it is said they are to come.
everything you're being told is a prophecy - that means it is telling something very important in your future.

the people, and the prince of those people will be in Jerusalem hundreds of years in your future, Daniel.
they'll have a leader (called a prince).
he isn't born yet.

he'll lead those people, the romans, who you are being told about now in c 539 B.C.
that prince of the romans who will destroy the city (hundreds of years from now, meaning future to you, Daniel) will order his people to raze it to the ground. they will not leave one stone upon another.

that prince who is to come, hundreds of years from the time i am here speaking to you, Daniel, which is about the year 539 B.C., will completely destroy the holy city; and most people in it.

that prince who is to come is way in your future Daniel. that's why you're being told he is yet to come.
you live in c. 539 B.C., and he is a long time into your future.

the prince who is to come is named Titus, but God didn't name him here, in this prophecy you are being given, approximately 539 years before the Messiah of Israel appears in the holy city.

you won't see any of that Daniel, but write it down, because it's all to come (in your future).

if the romans come, they will be led by a prince. if the prince you're being told about - who is to come (in your future) doesn't come with his people to destroy the city, if they come without a prince leading them, it means this prophecy failed.

either that or for some reason, you're being told everything about the release from captivity; the coming fulfillment of the promised Messiah; the subsequent destruction of the city; a people in your future who will do it.....but the leader or prince of those people won't actually appear for several thousand years after all that other stuff is fulfilled.

you weren't told there would be a gap of several thousand years concerning only the prince of those people who would destroy the city, but readers thousands of years in the future will figure out the prince wasn't Titus who eventually did come (but when you were told about this, your were told he was yet to come because you lived hundreds of years before he came).

and they will instruct many accordingly.

Bookreader · May 12, 2013

The thing is with several of the prophecies in the Bible they can and have and will occur on multiple occasions.
Many events are shadows of later events. Or echos of earlier events.

Whether God's plan is laid out this way so that we can see or whether it's just the way gets the result we won't know.

What we do know is that some prophecy can (and clearly is) interpreted as having happened.
I don't think the Bible agrees with preterism. But if certain verses are thought of in a certain way then one can support that viewpoint. That is using the Bible to bolster one's belief.

What I don't know is where this 7 year and 3.5 year thing comes in the chronology between the death of Christ (30AD?) and the destruction of the temple and the end of sacrifices (70AD).
I make that about 40 years (the same time Moses and the Israelites were in the desert).
I am curious.

I'm curious where it says in the Bible that Stephen was stoned 3.5 years after Christ died ( as bob_w states ).

Katy-follower · May 12, 2013

I should've expected to get 100 different interpretations. This seems to be the case with all scripture these days. God isn't the author of confusion and would especially not want one associating the workings of Antichrist with Jesus!!

Time to be like a child and read scripture for what it actually says, ignoring all that others have indoctrinated you with. Scripture was not written to only be understood by the most studied theologians. God reveals to children.

Katy-follower · May 12, 2013

Bookreader said:

I agree totally. When one is indoctrinated with something it affects the way they view all of scripture.. it leads to accepting and rejecting certain key scriptures in order to support the view. One idea gives birth to another and to another... so in the end the belief spirals out of control and leads to a misinterpretation of all scriptures.

There is a "mystery" scripture which I read and it was naturally understood the very first time I read it, no questions asked and no confusion whatsoever, I just "knew" what it meant. I notice this mystery topic has been debated on here with many different opinions given. Obviously the Holy Spirit revealed it to me, because I was not confused, so how is it that others are getting so confused about key scriptures? Is it because they are not allowing the Holy Spirit to reveal it to them, rather they are relying on doctrines and opinions of men?

I hope that many have the opportunity in their lives to meet a child with more Godly wisdom than any theologian.

zone · May 13, 2013

i wonder why such important thing like a Roman Prince in our future, who has nothing to do with Daniel 9 except apparently it identifies him as Roman, is just inserted into Daniel 9 like that.

oh....he isn't.

only when people add him in, like this :

and the people (Romans) of the prince who is to come (Antichrist 1,000s of years into the future) will destroy the city and stuff (70AD).

ya...that makes lots of sense.

HEY DANIEL - and the people (Romans) of the prince who isn't born yet (Titus) but who is to come into the world will destroy Jerusalem.

nah....too complicated.

oh history why are you so boring?

1still_waters · May 13, 2013

No one is attributing the works of anti-Christ to Jesus. It's the other way around.
The point of the 70 weeks is about the redemption/salvation/forgiveness found in and accomplished by Jesus.
This is addressed right away.

This is all about salvation, and week 70 is like the climax of the story!
Week 70 has the covenant confirmed.
The old sacrificial system abolished.
The closing of the old temple system.

Jesus does all of that!

Certainly the climax of the story of redemption isn't about anti-Christ.

Talk about character switches.

zone · May 13, 2013

1still_waters said:

No one is attributing the works of anti-Christ to Jesus. It's the other way around.
The point of the 70 weeks is about the redemption/salvation/forgiveness found in and accomplished by Jesus.
This is addressed right away.

This is all about salvation, and week 70 is like the climax of the story!
Week 70 has the covenant confirmed.
The old sacrificial system abolished.
The closing of the old temple system.

Jesus does all of that!

Certainly the climax of the story of redemption isn't about anti-Christ.

Talk about character switches.

replacement theology, Still.

you already had this sorted out once.

come on!

Angela53510 · May 13, 2013

Katy-follower said:

So you are the innocent child who is claiming to not have any theological understanding? I am just curious, because you keep starting threads that are so indoctrinated with the dispensationalism which is totally rejected by any scholar who has studied the Bible.

Of course, you claim not to know what dispensationalism is, I guess you just figured it out reading the Bible for yourself. I have also read the Bible about 50 times, not including actually studying it and reading it in the original languages. I came to the conclusion a long time ago during my personal and "innocent" study that dispensationalism was one of the greatest lies being propagated in the church today. (Well, besides the Health and Wealth or Prosperity Gospel!)

It took reading theologians to give me a voice to stand against this heresy, and it is just a bad interpretation of the Bible. So sometimes being an innocent child and really studying the Bible AND the theologians result in a very different doctrine than you are teaching.

Really, we could argue verses all day long. But suffice it to say, I am content to know that Jesus is my Saviour, and what is so much more important that constantly arguing eschatology is really following Jesus.

"[SUP]31 [/SUP]“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. [SUP]32 [/SUP]All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. [SUP]33 [/SUP]He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.[SUP]34 [/SUP]“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. [SUP]35 [/SUP]For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, [SUP]36 [/SUP]I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
[SUP]37 [/SUP]“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? [SUP]38 [/SUP]When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?[SUP]39 [/SUP]When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
[SUP]40 [/SUP]“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
[SUP]41 [/SUP]“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [SUP]42 [/SUP]For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, [SUP]43 [/SUP]I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
[SUP]44 [/SUP]“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
[SUP]45 [/SUP]“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
[SUP]46 [/SUP]“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”" Matt. 25:31-46

God spoke to me about this being one of the most important verses in the New Testament on one of my many read through the Bible occasions. So what are we all doing about it??

And I don't think arguing about weeks or one Bible verse is the right answer!

And I was just wondering how many actual theologians you have actually read? Jesus did say something about "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Seems to me like you are throwing the stone of pretending you learned this all by your personal bible readings, when in fact, it is a theology, just like many others, but just badly substantiated.

1still_waters · May 13, 2013

zone said:

Yeah between my latent head knowledge and addiction to the "doctrines of man" I'm finding it hard to accept dispensational interpretations. I just can't bring myself to make the climax of Dan 9 about anti-Christ.

Ariel82 · May 13, 2013

what is awful is to take what Jesus has done and fulfilled and expect some anti-Christ figure to take Jesus' place and make it something evil.

the end of sacrifice and offering is a GOOD thing. not evil.

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Hebrews 8
[SUP]7 [/SUP]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— [SUP]9 [/SUP]not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. [SUP]10 [/SUP]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. [SUP]11 [/SUP]None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. [SUP]12 [/SUP]For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[SUP][b][/SUP] I will remember no more.”[SUP][c][/SUP]
[SUP]13 [/SUP]In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

JESUS PUT AN END TO SACRIFICES by offering Himself for the remission of sins:

Hebrews 7

[SUP]26 [/SUP]For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; [SUP]27[/SUP]who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

seems pretty simple to me, don't see why people try and make it so hard and complicated. kind of how the untouched stone is a foreshadow of JESUS.

Daniel 9:27 blunder...

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Laodicea

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Laodicea

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

1still_waters

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

1still_waters

Guest

Ariel82

Guest