How ya doin' KJV1611?
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
In the verse above, the covenant spoken of was the one that was made with father Abraham when God credited him with righteousness because he believed what God said about giving him a son. This covenant was given 430 years before the law was given. What Paul is saying here is that, the law, which God gave through Moses to the Israelites, does not do away with the previous covenant 430 years earlier that was given to Abraham as a promise and has nothing to do with Jesus making a covenant during the time that he was on the earth. Consequently, when God said to Abraham regarding that covenant, "I will make you the father of many nations" we as believers are the recipients of that promise, having the same faith as Abraham.
Knowing this, why would anyone think Daniel 9:27 is a broken 7 years peace treaty between Antichrist and Israel? A peace treaty or breaking a peace treaty is not even mentioned in Daniel 9:27, nor are Israel and Antichrist mentioned
Here is the scripture in question:
"After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of
the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[SUP] [/SUP]In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
Now, I have included verse 26 above to demonstrate that at the end of sixty-nine of those seventy seven year periods, "the Anointed One" is said to be cut off, that is, Christ crucified, then "the ruler" of the people is mentioned. Then in verse 27, it states that "He" will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'. The "He" in the verse must then refer back to the previous person which was spoken of, which would have to be "the ruler" of the people, who is mentioned after the Anointed One is cut off. Therefore, it is that ruler that is the one who makes the covenant for one seven year period.
why would anyone think Daniel 9:27 is a broken 7 years peace treaty between Antichrist and Israel?
Regarding the above, first of all, according to the scripture, we know that "He" the ruler, confirms a covenant with "Many" for one 'seven', that is, one seven year period. The way in which we know that the covenant is made with Israel is one, that last seven years is the completion of the decree of seventy 'sevens' that was given to Israel and Jerusalem in verse 24 and therefore, that last seven years is the fulfillment of that seventy seven years prophecy that was decreed upon Israel.
And two, after the ruler makes the covenant, it states that in the middle of the covenant, he causes the sacrifice and offerings to cease and on a wing of the temple he sets up an abomination that causes desolation. Therefore, being that the last seven years is the fulfillment of the prophecy given to Israel, this would demonstrate that the offerings and sacrifices that he causes to cease and that he sets up an abomination in the holy place within the temple, then we know that this is in reference to Israel. Furthermore, the causing of the sacrifice and offerings to cease, demonstrates that the ability to perform them was apart of the covenant that was made and that Israel is at least part of the "many" mentioned in the scripture.
All that said, the "He" in the verse does three things:
1.) He makes a covenant with many for one seven year period
2.) In the middle of the seven years, he stops the offerings and sacrifices
3.) In the middle of the seven years, he sets up an abomination in the holy place within the temple
Since there is only one person mentioned in Dan.9:27, which is he/the ruler, then he is the one performing the events referred to in Dan.27. Therefore, since He/the ruler in the verse is the one making the covenant and is also causing the offerings and sacrifices to cease, then he is also the same one who will be setting up the abomination in the temple and therein lies the problem. My point is that, if you make Jesus the "He" in the verse as the one who makes the covenant and the one who is causing the sacrifices and offerings to ceasae, then Jesus would also have to be the One who sets up the abomination, which is impossible. For one, he was said to be "cut off" (crucified) prior to the mention of "the ruler" and therefore, the Anointed One is already gone before the ruler comes. And two, the word "Bdelugma" translated as "abomination" is defined as a reeking stench, a foul odor, a detestable thing before God. That said, if you have Jesus as the one who is setting up the abomination, he would be blaspheming God the Father and himself. This being true, then Jesus cannot be the "He" mentioned in the verse, but is that ruler, the antichrist, that man of lawlessness, who is the one who will perform all three of the above mentioned.
I hope that this helps give you some understanding of this scripture.
