What is the COVENANT of Daniel 9:27?

[zone]

No preterist can prove the details of the covenant have been fulfilled as Dan. 9:27 gives. It's still future. Does this mean there has been a 2000 year gap in this prophecy? Yes

any Christian knows from the Bible that the details of the covenant in 9:27 are fulfilled.
i'm not going to bother posting the promises and their fulfillment in Christ.

if you don't know them, i don't know what you believe.
it isn't the Gospel.

 

[zone]

Hebrew grammar is similar to English grammar (in fact all languages that I know) in that the pronoun "he" looks for the nearest antecedent. Verse 26 "the prince who is to come" is the nearest antecedent.

do you just fish around for the "nearest" antecendent HE without the SUBJECT?

okay...i'm going to choose another book and do the same.
and we'll see how that turns out.

 

[BradC]

Here are the literal facts about the covenant from Dan. 9:27: "He" makes it, "with the many" (Jewish nation), "for one week" (7 years), "he breaks the covenant in the middle" (3.5 years) stopping sacrifice.

Hebrew grammar is similar to English grammar (in fact all languages that I know) in that the pronoun "he" looks for the nearest antecedent. Verse 26 "the prince who is to come" is the nearest antecedent. Those who believe the "he" is the Messiah have to make a grammatical leap, not to mention the fact that Jesus is no where stated that he made a 7 year covenant with Israel that He broke in the middle, stopping sacrifice. True, His death is the ultimate sacrifice and all that is needed, but that's not what Dan. 9:27 alludes to.

No preterist can prove the details of the covenant have been fulfilled as Dan. 9:27 gives. It's still future. Does this mean there has been a 2000 year gap in this prophecy? Yes, but there are numerous prophecies where Jesus' 1st Advent and His 2nd Coming are blended, and they all have had a 2000 year gap. Not unusual or unbelievable.

Those that would say it has been fulfilled have no continuity in their thinking because they operate under a false premise with prejudice and have messed up the whole thing. They will give you these long drawn out answers that do nothing more than what Rom 16:17,18 describes.

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[GRA]

Here are the literal facts about the covenant from Dan. 9:27: "He" makes it, "with the many" (Jewish nation), "for one week" (7 years), "he breaks the covenant in the middle" (3.5 years) stopping sacrifice.

Hebrew grammar is similar to English grammar (in fact all languages that I know) in that the pronoun "he" looks for the nearest antecedent. Verse 26 "the prince who is to come" is the nearest antecedent. Those who believe the "he" is the Messiah have to make a grammatical leap, not to mention the fact that Jesus is no where stated that he made a 7 year covenant with Israel that He broke in the middle, stopping sacrifice. True, His death is the ultimate sacrifice and all that is needed, but that's not what Dan. 9:27 alludes to.

No preterist can prove the details of the covenant have been fulfilled as Dan. 9:27 gives. It's still future. Does this mean there has been a 2000 year gap in this prophecy? Yes, but there are numerous prophecies where Jesus' 1st Advent and His 2nd Coming are blended, and they all have had a 2000 year gap. Not unusual or unbelievable.

You need to check your "facts" very carefully... ( And, keep studying that grammar! )

The phrase "confirm the covenant" ( 'the' not 'a' ) does not mean "make a [ new ] treaty" -- it means "confirm / strengthen the [ already-existent ] covenant"...

Here is an example, in the same "sense" as above, of what it means to "confirm" a covenant:

A husband and wife "confirm" their marriage covenant by loving and helping each other. By doing so, they "prove" ( show forth the truth of the intent of ) their marriage covenant and strengthen it to the effect of "holding it up firmly" in continual perpetuation.

( "Something like that..." )

The idea behind the word 'confirm' is a combination of the following:

~ "to verify"
~ "to support or uphold"
~ "to strengthen or make more firm"



The verse says nothing whatsoever about anyone breaking the covenant. This is erroneously assumed... ( The assumption is made that 'the covenant' is an agreement to re-instate animal sacrifice. )



Please read post #121.

 

[zone]

Here are the literal facts about the covenant from Dan. 9:27: "He" makes it, "with the many" (Jewish nation), "for one week" (7 years), "he breaks the covenant in the middle" (3.5 years) stopping sacrifice.

Hebrew grammar is similar to English grammar (in fact all languages that I know) in that the pronoun "he" looks for the nearest antecedent. Verse 26 "the prince who is to come" is the nearest antecedent. Those who believe the "he" is the Messiah have to make a grammatical leap, not to mention the fact that Jesus is no where stated that he made a 7 year covenant with Israel that He broke in the middle, stopping sacrifice. True, His death is the ultimate sacrifice and all that is needed, but that's not what Dan. 9:27 alludes to.

No preterist can prove the details of the covenant have been fulfilled as Dan. 9:27 gives. It's still future. Does this mean there has been a 2000 year gap in this prophecy? Yes, but there are numerous prophecies where Jesus' 1st Advent and His 2nd Coming are blended, and they all have had a 2000 year gap. Not unusual or unbelievable.

Typically, a relative clause modifies a noun or noun phrase, and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments within the relative clause has the same referent as that noun or noun phrase. For example, in the sentence I met a man who wasn't there, the subordinate clause who wasn't there is a relative clause, since it modifies the noun man, and uses the pronoun who to indicate that the same "man" is referred to within the subordinate clause (in this case, as its subject).

Relative clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...

Polysyndeton is the use of several conjunctions in close succession, especially where some might be omitted (as in "he ran and jumped and laughed for joy"). It is a stylistic scheme used to achieve a variety of effects: it can increase the rhythm of prose, speed or slow its pace, convey solemnity or even ecstasy and childlike exuberance. Another common use of polysyndeton is to create a sense of being overwhelmed, or in fact directly overwhelm the audience by using conjunctions, rather than commas, leaving little room for a reader to breathe.[1][2]

In grammar, a polysyndetic coordination is a coordination in which all conjuncts are linked by coordinating conjunctions (usually and, but, or, nor in English).

King James Bible

Polysyndeton is used extensively in the King James Version of the Bible. For example:

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:22-24

Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Leviticus 5:2.

And Joshua, and all of Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had. Joshua 7.24.

......

Daniel 9:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 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.

 

[watcher2013]

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]Brother. I do not know who you think I am, But I am not stupid.

Jerusalem is a CITY. It is not a BUILDING. A TEMPLE is a BUILDING. Not a CITY.




No. What I am doing is separating as City from one building in the city.

I showed you Cyrus decree. He decreed ONLY the house of God would be built.

The CITY laid in ruin, the walls were on the ground and the other buildings lied in ruin, UNTIL Artaxerxes gave the decree to rebuild the CITY

City or not, a small house, walls, street or a temple:

The vision was referring to the COMMAND to restore and build JERUSALEM.
a wall is a form of structure like a building, street are just street...there are gravel, block or paved street...likewise the temple is part of Jerusalem.

I remember in thread no 6 you have reference ezra 4, and since you insist they are building the temple not the City..here what the letter that was sent to Artaxerxes:


Ezr 4:11 This is thetext of the letter they sent. To: King Artaxerxes From: Your servants, the menof the province beyond the Euphrates River. Ezr 4:12 May the king be advised that the Jews whocame from you to us have reached Jerusalem and are rebuilding a rebellious andwicked city, having completed its walls and repaired its foundations.

Were they building the temple or the city???????

Ezr 4:3 ButZerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of the families of Israelreplied, "You have no part in our plans for building a temple to our God,because we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, in accordance withthe decree issued by King Cyrus, king of Persia."
They were building the Temple according to the decree issued by Cyrus, and Yet the letter was implying that THEY WERE BUILDING THE CITY. ("...Jews who came from you to us have reached Jerusalem and are rebuilding a rebellious and wicked city")

Artaxerxes continued only what was started by the Decree of Cyrus regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

 

[watcher2013]

Your mistaken.

The final roman kingdom never came to exist.

The ten horn kingdom, had another king come out, Kill three of the first kings to take their seats. the final 7 kings gave the little horn complete control over their empires (financlial and military) and became puppet kings. The king who thus took over the new kingdom of rome gained control of the WHOLE EARTH (in case your wondering, Every Tribe, Every nation, Every tongue) Meaning the WHOLE EARTH.

No king has had this power. Many have tried (hitler being the last) but no kingdom has had this much power.

Thus this kingdom is still future.. Thus a gap is introduced.

Also. This kingdom will be DESTROYED BY THE RETURN OF CHRIST.. Last I checked. He has not yet returned.

Did I say all the kingdoms were fulfilled...I just listed them down for you. (to show you there are no gaps in the kingdoms)

We are still in the second phase of the fourth kingdom, which is the rising of the the ten horns....soon a little horn from the ten horns will arise, which is also the eight king of revelation.

notice that the list have two little horn... one from the third kingdom which is Antiochus epiphanies. The other one is from the fourth kingdom which is yet to be revealed.

 

[zone]

Ezr 4:3 But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel replied, "You have no part in our plans for building a temple to our God,because we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, in accordance with the decree issued by King Cyrus, king of Persia."

outstanding
Ezra 4.

yup...it's Cyrus.
ty.

 

[zone]

Did I say all the kingdoms were fulfilled...I just listed them down for you. (to show you there are no gaps in the kingdoms)

We are still in the second phase of the fourth kingdom, which is the rising of the the ten horns....soon a little horn from the ten horns will arise, which is also the eight king of revelation.

notice that the list have two little horn... one from the third kingdom which is Antiochus epiphanies. The other one is from the fourth kingdom which is yet to be revealed.

aawwww.......now you got a gap in there.



the last kingdom was Christ's.
it came when he came.

in the days of those kings (Romans & Herods); the God of heaven will.......

 

[zone]

Those that would say it has been fulfilled have no continuity in their thinking

then you're not saved.
Jesus didn't go to the Cross in the 70th week, and God failed in His mission to Israel.
He had to think up the mystery gentile church age gap for little you.

when you vanish Israel will get an earthly reward...and that's it.
because she was never promised the indwelling Spirit, to be an habitation for God, members of His household.

no faith or grace for them.
never even offered to them.

...

thinking? wow.

 

[zone]

You need to check your "facts" very carefully... ( And, keep studying that grammar! )

The phrase "confirm the covenant" ( 'the' not 'a' ) does not mean "make a [ new ] treaty" -- it means "confirm / strengthen the [ already-existent ] covenant"...

Here is an example, in the same "sense" as above, of what it means to "confirm" a covenant:

A husband and wife "confirm" their marriage covenant by loving and helping each other. By doing so, they "prove" ( show forth the truth of the intent of ) their marriage covenant and strengthen it to the effect of "holding it up firmly" in continual perpetuation.

( "Something like that..." )

The idea behind the word 'confirm' is a combination of the following:

~ "to verify"
~ "to support or uphold"
~ "to strengthen or make more firm"



The verse says nothing whatsoever about anyone breaking the covenant. This is erroneously assumed... ( The assumption is made that 'the covenant' is an agreement to re-instate animal sacrifice. )



Please read post #121.

GRA....have you come across the Peace Treaty?
those who stick by it won't produce it.
where can i find it?

 

[watcher2013]

absolutely it is.
most people are against it.

no, i don't believe i have to prove any given event as the close of the 70th week.
the very events of 70AD are the proof the 70th week ended...40 years before

though i' guess i'm going to get back into it....not long ago i recall getting close - this was the passage:

Daniel 12
11"From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12"How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! 13"But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

one of these days, maybe.

hope for the best, but prove it with recorded events not by another prophecy.

then your last week (7 years) would actually be 40ish years after the 69th (?)
that's a gap...i don't do the gap can't.

the roman-jewish wars are pretty important though.
Daniel 11 & 12,



well, it's possible the roman-jewish wars might be covered here (though not beyond 70AD):

"And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined."

but that's not included in the 70 weeks, just like Titus isn't.
it's detail about the "even to the end" part...the utter end of Jerusalem.
the 70 weeks were for salvation. to fulfill the things listed that Jesus did.

Remember the Maccabean revolt (in 1Mac 2): Mattathias defend to lived by the covenant rather than follow Antiochus epiphanies.

"its end will come with a flood: ending the war on the Mountain of Masada. (flood as a figurative destruction of war) (like the Maccabean revolt....this end the rebellion thus the end to defend to live by the covenant)

i understand....but the 70 weeks are highly specific to daniel's prayer.
we keep forgetting to read the whole chapter.

the destruction of it isn't the 70 weeks. the 70 weeks are what all the prophets prophesied - Israel's redemption and salvation.

i agree completely the destruction is in the passage.
it's everywhere in Daniel...the metal-man image; the iron beast...



but....when Jesus was crucified the Temple Veil was torn....there was an earthquake, etc.

it wouldn't matter if there were daily sacrifices after that or not: Jesus made a full end to that system when He died and rose from the dead.

the temple activities were continuing even as the Apostles were preaching and pleading.

God was patient.

the end 69 weeks for me deals with the people sin...transgression etc...when the jews crucified their messiah, and it also mark their blindness.

the last week deals with the city.

even though the veil was torn...the temple services continued till ad70.


it is a good thing that you have accepted the possibility that there was a gap in the prophecy. and that's a start.

 

[watcher2013]

aawwww.......now you got a gap in there.



the last kingdom was Christ's.
it came when he came.

in the days of those kings (Romans & Herods); the God of heaven will.......

This is a very big discussion...you can PM if you want to further discuss this.
however I will leave you with this question:

Rev 17:10 And thereare seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come;and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev 17:11 And thebeast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, andgoeth into perdition.
Rev 17:12 And the tenhorns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet;but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

In vs. 10, Who are the five fallen kings,
Who is "the one is"
and who that is yet to come.

in vs. 11. Who is the Beast the was and Is not
In vs 12. The ten Horns, when did they received their kingdoms and who are they?

you can PM me with your response if you want this to be private..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

nah....that's all distraction.
it says from the going forth of the commandment.
that's all it says.
and God made a really big deal of raising up Cyrus and ordaining what he would do before he was even born.

i'm going with Cyrus.

Thats alright.

I will go with the truth.

Cyrus sent the command to restor the temple. thats a fact. as seen in his doings.

The timeline does not fit with Cyrus' edict either.. So you continue to go with what you want.

I will go by what scripture says

 

[eternally-gratefull]

i have yet to see any Peace Treaty.
where is it?

well of course not. It has not happened yet, so why would you see it?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Re: 70 weeks - significant events

you mean to say the Coming of Jesus Christ and all He did wasn't as good as getting palestine and a permanent temple?

Nope. the coming of Jesus was for all nations of the world. and all peoples of the world.

Which is not the context of daniel 9 at all.

what greater answer to prayer than Jesus the Righteous Branch? The Son of David. The King of Israel?

lol. Daniel was not praying for this. Thus would not expect this as an answer. Daniel already knew that God was sending a savior to redeem him of his sins, His prayer was for his people and holy city in ruins at that time, and asking God to shew mercy on them, even though they were still in sin.

You ignore ALL of daniels prayer to get your interpretation.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

any Christian knows from the Bible that the details of the covenant in 9:27 are fulfilled.
i'm not going to bother posting the promises and their fulfillment in Christ.

They must not. Many christians do not agree with this.. Unless your declaring this to be a salvic issue, thus claiming non of us are christian.

at which case.. we have serious issues!

if you don't know them, i don't know what you believe.
it isn't the Gospel.

The gospel has nothing to do with daniel 9. The gospel is jesus came to save all who will believe. not the stopping the sin of the children of israel, and restoring Gods holy city to what it was intended to be.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

do you just fish around for the "nearest" antecendent HE without the SUBJECT?

okay...i'm going to choose another book and do the same.
and we'll see how that turns out.

yet again.

there is no need to put the words "the prince to come" unless that prince is spoken of later.

you have this prince mentioned, with no mention of what he does (and no, this prince is not titus or any prince in AD 70. If it was. God would have just said the 4th empire, or the roman people.

Again language is clear here!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You need to check your "facts" very carefully... ( And, keep studying that grammar! )

The phrase "confirm the covenant" ( 'the' not 'a' ) does not mean "make a [ new ] treaty" -- it means "confirm / strengthen the [ already-existent ] covenant"...

Here is an example, in the same "sense" as above, of what it means to "confirm" a covenant:

A husband and wife "confirm" their marriage covenant by loving and helping each other. By doing so, they "prove" ( show forth the truth of the intent of ) their marriage covenant and strengthen it to the effect of "holding it up firmly" in continual perpetuation.

( "Something like that..." )

The idea behind the word 'confirm' is a combination of the following:

~ "to verify"
~ "to support or uphold"
~ "to strengthen or make more firm"



The verse says nothing whatsoever about anyone breaking the covenant. This is erroneously assumed... ( The assumption is made that 'the covenant' is an agreement to re-instate animal sacrifice. )



Please read post #121.

Jesus himself did not confirm a covenant. He made a new covenant. And did away with the old.

All the words confirm a covenant means is a covenant, which was already in place. was confirmed. or re-upped so to speak.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

City or not, a small house, walls, street or a temple:

The vision was referring to the COMMAND to restore and build JERUSALEM.
a wall is a form of structure like a building, street are just street...there are gravel, block or paved street...likewise the temple is part of Jerusalem.

I remember in thread no 6 you have reference ezra 4, and since you insist they are building the temple not the City..here what the letter that was sent to Artaxerxes:


Ezr 4:11 This is thetext of the letter they sent. To: King Artaxerxes From: Your servants, the menof the province beyond the Euphrates River. Ezr 4:12 May the king be advised that the Jews whocame from you to us have reached Jerusalem and are rebuilding a rebellious andwicked city, having completed its walls and repaired its foundations.

wow. what version do you have? Or did you change the word of God.

The actual text.

.[SUP]11 [/SUP](This is a copy of the letter that they sent him)To King Artaxerxes from your servants, the men of the region beyond the River, and so forth:[SUP][f][/SUP]
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us at Jerusalem, and are building the rebellious and evil city, and are finishing its walls and repairing the foundations.

The word complete is not there. It is an ongoing action. Not a completed one. If the actions were complete. then this letter has no basis, the work is already done.

Were they building the temple or the city???????

Ezr 4:3 ButZerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of the families of Israelreplied, "You have no part in our plans for building a temple to our God,because we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, in accordance withthe decree issued by King Cyrus, king of Persia."
They were building the Temple according to the decree issued by Cyrus, and Yet the letter was implying that THEY WERE BUILDING THE CITY. ("...Jews who came from you to us have reached Jerusalem and are rebuilding a rebellious and wicked city")

Artaxerxes continued only what was started by the Decree of Cyrus regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

You missed the whole point.

They were ONLY supposed to be building the temple. But (against the decree of Cyrus) they were trying to rebuild the City also.

Which is WHY

1. The letter was written
2. They were ordered to stop.

You need to think. if the decree was to rebuild the city. They would have been doing as they were decreed, and WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED.

I hope and pray you were not using this post to support your point, because it goes AGAINST your point.