Revelation Timeline

[Ahwatukee]

Why do you conclude that the "he" that confirms the covenant is the prince that shall come

In answer to your question, here is the scripture:

"26 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. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ 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."

Notice that in verse 26, the Anointed One (Christ crucified) is said to be cut of at the end of sixty-nine 'sevens." Then after that, "the ruler" of the people is mentioned. Therefore, in keeping with proper grammar, the one who makes the covenant in Dan.9:27 must refer back to the last person mentioned, which would not be the Anointed One who was cut off, but the ruler of the people who would come and destroy the city mentioned after the Anointed One.

Remember, the "he" in Daniel 9:27 is confirming an already existing covenant... he's not making a new covenant or peace treaty, he's confirming one that already exist... where is this covenant in scripture?

The above is a well known false teaching, as I have debated with people before regarding this. The "He" in the verse is not confirming an already existing covenant, but is in fact the one who is making it. The scripture actually says, "He makes a firm covenant with many," demonstrating that he is the one who is initiating that last seven years and thereby fulfilling the seventy seven year periods. No where in the scripture does it state that the ruler is confirming a covenant that is already in place, as though someone else had made it and he's just making it strong.

New International Version
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven


New Living Translation
The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven

English Standard Version
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week


New American Standard Bible
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week


King James Bible
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week


Holman Christian Standard Bible
He will make a firm covenant with many for one week


American Standard Version
And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week

I have listed several different translations of the same verse and as you can see, each of them demonstrates that he/the ruler, is the one who is making the covenant. No where in any of the translations does it show that he/the ruler is confirming an already existing covenant, but is in fact the one making the seven year covenant.

 

[Ahwatukee]

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.

Now read it again until you can see that Paul said that Jesus CONFIRMED the covenant God made with Abraham. Daniel 9:27 says exactly the same thing except that Daniel says it looking forward to when Jesus wil come to confirm the covenant.

The two covenants "that was confirmed" is speaking in regards to the promise made to Abraham through Jesus Christ 430 years before the law came into being, which is the gospel and has nothing to do with the last seven years regarding the decree upon Israel's seventy 'sevens'. You are misapplying the mention of the gospel covenant that was made with Abraham and applying it to the covenant related to the nation Israel and that ruler who is to come. Just because the word "confirm" is used in both these verses does not mean that the scripture is speaking about the same event. The word "confirm" is not exclusive to either of those events. As I said earlier, Jesus cannot be the "He" in Dan.9:27 and that because it would have him as the one setting up the abomination. Therefore, that alone kills this whole theory of Jesus being the "He" of Dan.9:27. Which ever way you want to slice it, Jesus can't be the one setting up the abomination and therefore, neither can he be the one causing the sacrifice and offerings to cease nor the one who makes the covenant.

 

[valiant]

In answer to your question, here is the scripture:

"26 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. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ 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."

Notice that in verse 26, the Anointed One (Christ crucified) is said to be cut of at the end of sixty-nine 'sevens." Then after that, "the ruler" of the people is mentioned. Therefore, in keeping with proper grammar, the one who makes the covenant in Dan.9:27 must refer back to the last person mentioned, which would not be the Anointed One who was cut off, but the ruler of the people who would come and destroy the city mentioned after the Anointed One.



The above is a well known false teaching, as I have debated with people before regarding this. The "He" in the verse is not confirming an already existing covenant, but is in fact the one who is making it. The scripture actually says, "He makes a firm covenant with many," demonstrating that he is the one who is initiating that last seven years and thereby fulfilling the seventy seven year periods. No where in the scripture does it state that the ruler is confirming a covenant that is already in place, as though someone else had made it and he's just making it strong.

New International Version
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven


New Living Translation
The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven

English Standard Version
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week


New American Standard Bible
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week


King James Bible
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week


Holman Christian Standard Bible
He will make a firm covenant with many for one week


American Standard Version
And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week

I have listed several different translations of the same verse and as you can see, each of them demonstrates that he/the ruler, is the one who is making the covenant. No where in any of the translations does it show that he/the ruler is confirming an already existing covenant, but is in fact the one making the seven year covenant.

I won't even waste time arguing against this nonsense,

 

[KJV1611]

It's impossibe to arrive at the truth if there's no inerrant bible... you can find a translation that will say pretty much anything you want it to say.

 

[KJV1611]

You're actually the one misunderstanding that Gal.3:17 verse. It's not about the old covenant at all!

Gal 3:6-9
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.


7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.


9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
KJV

Paul was contrasting the law which is allied to the old covenant vs. Faith which is allied to the New Covenant. The Promise God first gave to Abraham did NOT involve the law nor the old covenant.

What don't you understand about that Promise by Faith given Abraham 430 years PRIOR TO THE LAW AND OLD COVENANT?

Apparently you didn't read my post. I never said anything about the old covenant. I said Jesus confirmed the covenant that God made to Abraham... where do you get the old covenant out of that?

 

[KJV1611]

The "vile person" is the coming false one in the near future time of great tribulation. That hasn't happened yet. Antiochus came close to fulfilling it, but Jesus gave the "abomination of desolation" warning from Daniel later, after Antiochus Epiphenes had long been dead. How hard is that to understand?

The "league" the "vile person" of Dan.11 will... make, involves strengthening the old covenant among the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, which is when they will build another temple in our near future, and start old covenant worship again, a goal they have had ever since Israel became a nation again in 1948 by U.N. Charter vote, (and even before actually since the 2nd temple was destroyed and they haven't been able to fulfill the full requirements of the old covenant worship).

Ok so what existing covenant will this vile man be confirming?

 

[GaryA]

I'm not "off the bat", as you say, which I don't know where in the world that expression comes from anyway.

Right off the bat is a Southern expression meaning you're wrong right from the get go.

The phrase "right off the bat" refers to the initial trajectory of a baseball immediately after having been struck by a baseball bat. It indicates the short time and distance the ball has travelled - i.e., "having not yet gone very far" - and, means the same thing as "from the get go" ( as KJV1611 has indicated ) or "from the [ very ] beginning"...

( The word, and idea of, 'wrong' is not actually included in the definition of the phrase. )

It is used to place a focus on something that is in the sense of "before you [ even ] get started" or "before you [ even ] get into any depth" ( i.e. - before the ball travels any further ) -- with a built-in sense of 'immediate' attached...

 

[KJV1611]

The phrase "right off the bat" refers to the initial trajectory of a baseball immediately after having been struck by a baseball bat. It indicates the short time and distance the ball has travelled - i.e., "having not yet gone very far" - and, means the same thing as "from the get go" ( as KJV1611 has indicated ) or "from the [ very ] beginning"...

( The word, and idea of, 'wrong' is not actually included in the definition of the phrase. )

It is used to place a focus on something that is in the sense of "before you [ even ] get started" or "before you [ even ] get into any depth" ( i.e. - before the ball travels any further ) -- with a built-in sense of 'immediate' attached...

Very good explanation.

 

[DP]

Apparently you didn't read my post. I never said anything about the old covenant. I said Jesus confirmed the covenant that God made to Abraham... where do you get the old covenant out of that?

Yet you appear to not recognize that Promise to Abraham was by Faith, which is about the New Covenant that would come.

The "vile person" of Dan.11 makes a "league" in Jerusalem which also involves strengthening (or confirming) the old covenant, which he later ends with placing an idol abomination in Jerusalem instead. And that is the one of the Dan.9:27 verse, which is what the ending of the sacrifice and oblation is about.

 

[DP]

The phrase "right off the bat" refers to the initial trajectory of a baseball immediately after having been struck by a baseball bat. It indicates the short time and distance the ball has travelled - i.e., "having not yet gone very far" - and, means the same thing as "from the get go" ( as KJV1611 has indicated ) or "from the [ very ] beginning"...

( The word, and idea of, 'wrong' is not actually included in the definition of the phrase. )

It is used to place a focus on something that is in the sense of "before you [ even ] get started" or "before you [ even ] get into any depth" ( i.e. - before the ball travels any further ) -- with a built-in sense of 'immediate' attached...

In that case then, the ball I hit is still streaming out of the ball park.

 

[DP]

Ok so what existing covenant will this vile man be confirming?

The old covenant, like I showed in my previous posts. That is why Dan.11 reveals the sacrifices end with the placing of the abomination that makes desolate of Dan.11:31, which is the "abomination of desolation" Jesus foretold of in Matt.24 long after Antiochus IV had been dead.

 

[KJV1611]

GaryA what is your opinion of what a "week" is? I used to believe that it represented 7 years but now I'm thinking it may represent the seven feasts.

 

[GaryA]

Your question is answered by the 'grammar of the language'.

Daniel 9:

[SUP]26[/SUP] 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. [SUP]27[/SUP] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The part in bold is what I like to call an 'aside'. The main thought process is temporarily suspended, and returns after the aside.

The word 'people' is plural, and cannot be the target of the word 'he' in verse 27.

The phrase 'of the prince' is prepositional; therefore, the word 'prince' cannot be the target of the word 'he' in verse 27.

The word 'he' in verse 27 refers back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26.

..........

 

[DP]

Apparently you didn't read my post. I never said anything about the old covenant. I said Jesus confirmed the covenant that God made to Abraham... where do you get the old covenant out of that?

The PROMISE by faith Paul was speaking about in Gal.3 that he said Abraham believed is... about the New Covenant. I can't make it any more plain than that.

But here's what you said in your previous post about Gal.3:17...

KJV1611 said:
"Paul didn't say anything about Jesus making a new covenant during the time he was on earth, read the verse again. I mean really read it and understand what it says."

 

[KJV1611]

The old covenant, like I showed in my previous posts. That is why Dan.11 reveals the sacrifices end with the placing of the abomination that makes desolate of Dan.11:31, which is the "abomination of desolation" Jesus foretold of in Matt.24 long after Antiochus IV had been dead.

Sorry DP but the vile man is not going to confirm the old covenant.

 

[GaryA]

GaryA what is your opinion of what a "week" is? I used to believe that it represented 7 years but now I'm thinking it may represent the seven feasts.

"I think you should stay with your previous belief..."

70 weeks = 70 x 7 years = 490 years

"Don't overthink it..."

 

[DP]

GaryA what is your opinion of what a "week" is? I used to believe that it represented 7 years but now I'm thinking it may represent the seven feasts.

GaryA has gone off quoting himself; his mind must be somewhere else.

But I'm still here, and notice how now you're wanting to deceive with thinking the final 7 of Dan.9:27 is about feasts, which is far... reaching.

 

[GaryA]

GaryA has gone off quoting himself...

"Just borrowing from something I wrote in the past..."

 

[DP]

Sorry DP but the vile man is not going to confirm the old covenant.

The Dan.11 Scripture reveals that's exactly what he will do. But if the doctrine you're on makes you more comfortable than wanting to heed the Dan.11 chapter being about that one of Dan.9:27, then go to. I mean, how much does it take to understand that Jesus gave the "abomination of desolation" warning from the Book of Daniel in Matt.24 around 200 years after Antiochus had died?

 

[KJV1611]

The PROMISE by faith Paul was speaking about in Gal.3 that he said Abraham believed is... about the New Covenant. I can't make it any more plain than that.

But here's what you said in your previous post about Gal.3:17...

KJV1611 said:
"Paul didn't say anything about Jesus making a new covenant during the time he was on earth, read the verse again. I mean really read it and understand what it says."

I agree with you. Jesus confirmed the New Covenant when he came, died and rose again. This is what Daniel 9:27 is talking about also... He (Jesus) confirmed the covenant (New Covenant). The New Covenant came, there is no longer any need for animal scacifices any more... He (Jesus) caused the sacrifices to cease...