Harvesting of the Earth

[GaryA]

So what covenant is confirmed "with many" for one week?

Daniel 9:

1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; 2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. 3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: 4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; 5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: 6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. 8 O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. 9 To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; 10 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. 11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. 12 And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. 13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. 14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice. 15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. 16 O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us. 17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake. 18 O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. 19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name. 20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; 21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. 22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. 23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. 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. 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. 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.

No other covenant having been mentioned in the passage or known to Daniel - what do you suppose 'the covenant' is?

We have the Old Covenant. We have the New Covenant. The New Covenant confirms the Old Covenant by virtue of the fact that the New Covenant is one of the promises of the Old Covenant. So, in a sense, both Old Covenant and New Covenant. But, the direct-definition answer is the Old Covenant.

However, before you even consider all of this - are you willing to believe that it is a 'confirmation of the covenant' - because the Bible says so - and then go from there...?

Before we even know what covenant it is referring to, we know from the 'grammar of the language' that it is talking about a confirmation of the [already-existing] covenant and not a creation of a [new] "treaty" of some kind. Therefore, it has to be referring to an already-existing covenant.

 

[Inquisitor]

2. ...

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

The word "desolations" is plural not singular.

The time frame and the subject is seventy years and Jerusalem.

4. ...keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments

Daniel is referring to the old covenant (Exodus 24).

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

Time frame is now in weeks and we have sixty nine weeks until the messiah prince.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off

After sixty two weeks the messiah is cut off.

26 and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Jerusalem is sacked by the prince and his army.

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

The messiah was cut off at 62 weeks but the present prince and his army. Will confirm a covenant with "many" for one week
and sacrifices cease.

I would hazard a guess that the prince is Titus but I have no idea what the confirmation of the covenant is?

 

[GaryA]

'he' shall confirm the covenant

'he' shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

'he' shall make it desolate

'he' is Jesus - in all three cases

 

[GaryA]

The word "desolations" is plural not singular.

Yep.

The time frame and the subject is seventy years and Jerusalem.

Yep.

Daniel is referring to the old covenant (Exodus 24).

Yep.

Time frame is now in weeks and we have sixty nine weeks until the messiah prince.

Yep.

After sixty two weeks the messiah is cut off.

Yep.

Jerusalem is sacked by the prince and his army.

Yep.

The messiah was cut off at 62 weeks but the present prince and his army. Will confirm a covenant with "many" for one week

and sacrifices cease.

I would hazard a guess that the prince is Titus but I have no idea what the confirmation of the covenant is?

Please see post #83.

Please also see:

Seventy Weeks

 

[Omegatime]

'he' shall confirm the covenant

'he' shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

'he' shall make it desolate

'he' is Jesus - in all three cases

What foolish thinking

 

[GaryA]

What foolish thinking

No - that is correct thinking - and correct interpretation.

Please see:

Seventy Weeks

 

[Omegatime]

Are you proposing that "the law" was not fulfilled by Jesus?

If Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law to the letter then all has been accomplished.

According to Christian theology, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law by living a morally perfect life without sin,
obeying all of God's commands, and offering Himself as the ultimate, final sacrifice on the cross. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus
stated that He came not to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. [1, 2, 3, 4]

How Jesus Fulfilled the Law

Perfect Obedience: As a human, Jesus kept the moral and ethical demands of the law completely, acting as the only
person to do so without failure. [1]

The Final Sacrifice: The ceremonial and ritual laws required animal sacrifices for sin. Jesus' death on the cross served
as the permanent, once-for-all sacrifice. [1, 2, 3]

The Goal of the Law: The law pointed forward to Christ. By accomplishing its ultimate purpose and intent, He brought
the old covenant requirements to completion (AI)

That former covenant between Israel and YHWH has been terminated.

The Law itself which includes the ten commandments has now become obsolete.

Christians are now under a new covenant with Jesus and the new covenant is a spiritual covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit
gives life.

Read the verse carefully; "not of the letter but of the Spirit"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did keep the Torah and taught from the Torah and his prophets. Law is much more than 10 commandments

Saying the former covenant between Israel and the Word of God is obsolete is another most foolish thing a man could say

 

[Inquisitor]

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Please see post #83.

Please also see:

Seventy Weeks

Daniel 9:26-27
The Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and
the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will
confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering;
and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed,
gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.

I can see three separate characters.

The Messiah is cut off.

The Prince whom destroys the city and the temple.

Then The One who makes desolate.

Finally, The Many.

I asked AI to have a shot at Daniel 9:26-27

There are three to four distinct character references in this text passage, depending on how you group the pronouns and
titles: the Messiah, the prince who is to come (whose people destroy the city), the many (a collective group), and
the one who makes desolate. (AI)

 

[Inquisitor]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did keep the Torah and taught from the Torah and his prophets. Law is much more than 10 commandments

Saying the former covenant between Israel and the Word of God is obsolete is another most foolish thing a man could say

According to the New Testament, specifically the Book of Hebrews, the Mosaic covenant (often called the "Old Covenant")
was made obsolete and was replaced by the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ.

While the law given at Sinai is considered "holy, righteous, and good," the New Testament argues it was temporary—
a "tutor" or guardian intended to last only until the coming of the Messiah.

Here is the breakdown of the relationship between the Mosaic and New Covenants:

1. The Mosaic Covenant as "Obsolete".

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

"Replacement, Not Extension: The New Covenant is not a mere renewal or "face-lift" of the Mosaic Covenant,
but a fundamentally new arrangement, often described as a "better covenant" built on "better promises" (Hebrews 8:6).

Ratified by Blood: The New Covenant was ratified by the blood of Jesus, replacing the animal sacrifices of the Levitical system.

2. The Nature of the Transition Fulfilled, Not Destroyed:

Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

This means he accomplished the purpose of the law—both its moral demands and its foreshadowing of the Messiah thereby
bringing its legal, binding force to an end.

"Set Aside" and "Nailed to the Cross": Paul writes that the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" was abolished, and
the certificate of debt against humanity was nailed to the cross (Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14).

The Temple Destruction (AD 70): Many theologians point to the destruction of the Temple as the historical event that made it impossible to continue the Mosaic sacrificial system, confirming its "disappearance".

3. What Changed vs. What Remained That Passed Away:

The ceremonial laws, sacrificial system, dietary restrictions, and the requirement of physical circumcision are considered
fulfilled and no longer binding.

The Law on the Heart: The New Covenant fulfills the promise in Jeremiah 31:31–34, where God writes His law on the hearts of believers, moving from external constraints to internal empowerment by the Holy Spirit.

Moral Continuity: While believers are not under the Mosaic Code as a legal system, moral principles (such as loving God and neighbor) are upheld and re-interpreted through the "law of Christ".

Summary

The Mosaic covenant was a temporary arrangement for the nation of Israel, serving as a shadow of the coming reality in Christ.
With the arrival of the new covenant, the old is no longer the governing legal arrangement for believers.

 

[lrs68]

Or the USA is helping them.

Seeing that the USA is supposedly a Nation which believes in God is still God working behind the scenes to help Israel.

 

[lrs68]

Of course we are. We are allies.

Theoretically we are believers of the same God.

 

[Musicmaster]

What is happening In Revelations 14:14

14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”

16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.

“And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud sat one like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.”

Here’s what each part is saying in a clear, connected way:

• “I looked, and behold a white cloud”: A white cloud is a vivid way of describing heavenly glory and God’s presence. It signals that what happens next is not ordinary earthly action—it comes from heaven’s authority.
• “one like unto the Son of man”: This describes a figure who is closely identified with “the Son of man” imagery (the Lord Himself). The phrase “like unto” highlights the same kind of identity and role, even as Revelation uses symbolic wording.
• “sat upon the cloud”: Sitting shows authority and readiness. The figure is not scrambling—he is in control, poised to act.
• “having on his head a golden crown: ”A golden crown represents kingship and victorious rule. It communicates that this Person has ultimate authority (not delegated power that can be taken away).
• “and in his hand a sharp sickle”: A sickle is an implement for harvesting. The sharpness suggests the work will be decisive and effective—nothing is dull, delayed, or uncertain.
• The overall point (the meaning of the verse in context): Revelation is portraying the coming judgment/harvest of the earth: people are being separated spiritually rather than physically, and God’s final action is certain as the divide between those whom the latter part of the tribulation judgments will fall upon and those upon whom it will not, such as the sores and the scorpion stings. The scene is basically saying: Heaven’s appointed King is ready, and the time for GREATER harvest/judgment has arrived.

In Revelation 14, the “harvest” is God’s final, decisive sorting of humanity in preparation for the greater wrath yet to be poured out. The verse given (14:14) sets up the imagery: a crowned ruler with a sharp sickle is ready to act. The word “harvest” then means:

• Separation, not mere delay: It’s not a casual “try again later.” Harvest language implies that personal choices made will now arrive at an outcome that brings to completion a separation—things that are “ripe” are gathered and dealt with.
• Judgment framed as readiness/completion: The sharp sickle emphasizes that the work is effective and chronology-based: the moment has come when God’s purposes reach close to their end.
• Different grouping outcome is being determined: In Revelation’s broader flow, this harvest corresponds to the judgment of the earth—figuring that worship/fidelity vs. resistance to God is no longer something lingering; it’s divided with a perfect contrast.
• God’s control over timing and result: The one “sat” on the cloud with a crown signals authority, and the harvest imagery underlines that the outcome depends on God’s appointed action, not human maneuvering.

So, in that context, “harvest” is a metaphor for God’s final actions of judgment, where the “sickles” come out because the time for the beginning of the concluding of the matter has arrived.

Additionally, replacement theology, in its many, many manifestations out there, also seems to constantly rear its ugly head, foisting elements of Israel allegedly having been permanently cast aside with no possibility for being graft back in. Yes, we are fallen, but will soon be raised back up. Paul made dire warnings against the historic and modern, pervasive ideology that seems to underlie so much of modern Evangelicalism. All you Gentiles out there who hammer and hammer out this nonsense in postings and even false teachings to others within your various churchianity organizations, please study your Bibles more closely for what is actually written, while doing lingual word studies independent of subjectively choosing definitions of key words that happen to align with personal whim.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

One common manifestation of replacement theology is the never-ending confusion of the differences between "covenant" and "testament."

Folks, they are NOT the same thing. The New Covenant has not yet been established. We today are under a "testament" in the Blood of Christ Jesus, as He stated in that cup being the cop of the new testament, for there had to be the death of the testator for the testament to be in force for the redemption of all mankind throughout all time. This seems to escape so many who call the NT books the New TESTAMENT, and yet speak otherwise of renaming it as if the NT books were actually NC (New Covenant). That is utterly false.

MM

 

[2Christ]

Also, there is no salvation by works and there never has been. Additionally, there is no Jacob anymore. His troubles have long since ended.

Unbelievable. Please read more and study harder you really need to to this

 

[Cameron143]

Unbelievable. Please read more and study harder you really need to to this

As do we all.

 

[Omegatime]

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e928...3cyt0cm91YmxlK3ZlcnNlJmZvcm09Q1NCUkFORA&ntb=1

The phrase “time of Jacob’s trouble” comes from Jeremiah 30:7, which describes a future period of unparalleled distress for Israel, followed by deliverance.​

Full Verse (KJV)​

Jeremiah 30:7 — “Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.”

Jacob's troubles are referring to Israel

 

[Musicmaster]

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e928...3cyt0cm91YmxlK3ZlcnNlJmZvcm09Q1NCUkFORA&ntb=1

The phrase “time of Jacob’s trouble” comes from Jeremiah 30:7, which describes a future period of unparalleled distress for Israel, followed by deliverance.​

Full Verse (KJV)​

Jeremiah 30:7 — “Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.”

Jacob's troubles are referring to Israel

Remembering also the PURPOSES for those seventy weeks, which includes the seventieth:

Daniel 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.

The purposes alone give to us the very foundation for the tribulation itself, thus rendering replacement theology as being nothing but imaginings couched within foolish disregard for truth.

MM

 

[dkontner]

Isaiah 65:12-16
12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
13 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:
14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

 

[dkontner]

Matthew 8​

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Musicmaster]

The fallacies within the framework of replacement theology (often called “supersessionism”) claim that the church replaces Israel in God’s plan in a way that makes Israel’s covenantal promises either null or permanently transferred. From my observations, the critiques against Israel focus on historical, textual, and theological fallacies—i.e., common reasoning errors used to defend or build the replacement views.

Fallacies​

1)​

A frequent move is to treat every mention of “Israel,” “Zion,” “covenant,” or “land” as if it must always mean “the church,” even when the context points to a specific genetic people and national promises. That’s a categorical error: It “defines away” the subject instead of proving the equivalence from the passage’s context.

2)​

Supporters may slide between different senses of key terms:

• “Israel” (ethnic/nation vs. “people of God” generically)
• “covenant” (a covenant promise with real continuity vs. a mere spiritual idea)
• “fulfillment” (literal fulfillment vs. metaphorical re-labeling)

This is equivocation: the argument relies on changing the meaning of terms midstream without stating the change.

3)​

Even if some prophecies have a comparably “partial” or “typological” fulfillment in the church, that doesn’t logically entail wholesale replacement and yet replacement theology often argues:

“Some prophecies are fulfilled in the church → therefore all Israel-specific promises are replaced.”: That’s a non sequitur.

4)​

Many replacement arguments go looking for explicit New Testament statements that God has revoked Israel’s covenantal future, but then treat the absence of such a statement as if it were positive evidence (argument from silence). Conversely, those holding replacement theology may claim “the NT implies it” while not demonstrating the implication from specific texts: Absence of explicit revocation ≠ evidence of revocation.

5)​

Romans 9–11 is central because it addresses Israel’s status, divine election, and future hope. A common pattern in critiques is that replacement theology:

• either downplays Romans 11’s olive-tree continuity imagery,
• or redefines “Israel” in a way that breaks the flow of the argument.

If Israel is repeatedly treated as Israel in Romans 9–10, then making Romans 11 suddenly “mean something else” without textual justification is interpretive inconsistency.

6)​

Replacement theology sometimes argues:

• “Gentiles can be saved without becoming Jewish”
• so “God’s covenant plan for Israel is gone.”

But salvation by faith and covenant membership are not absolutely related in every sense. They aren’t the same question as to whether God still intends a future role for Israel in his overarching plan. Concluding “therefore Israel is replaced” commits a category mistake.

7)​

Replacement theology often frames the issue as a mathematical-style zero-sum transfer. But a better logical structure is:

• God can bless one people through another,
• God can graft in Gentiles,
• God can also preserve future covenant faithfulness to Israel.

The false dichotomy fallacy is arguing there’s only one of two options when the texts allow multiple layers of fulfillment.

8)​

Arguments that treat Israel’s covenant hopes as “canceled” often have trouble accounting for the repeated biblical emphasis on God’s faithfulness to his covenant purposes. Critics argue replacement theology effectively flips the covenant expectation:

God promised → God no longer intends → therefore promises can be dismissed as non-literal. But “God is faithful” themes make such dismissal logically strained unless the text clearly says so.

9)​

Some replacement claims use the fact that Christ is central and the church worships in him. Critics respond that this proves Christ is central, but it doesn’t automatically prove that covenant-national promises to Israel are thereby erased.

10)​

Even though the very first members of the Church were Jews ONLY, that the early church became predominantly Gentile in various and dominant regions, that is not equivalent to a fully developed doctrine that Israel was/is discarded. Using church demographics or early tensions to infer a replacement system can be an evidential leap.

11)​

When a passage uses concrete, political imagery (inheritance, restoration, regathering, land), critics argue replacement theology sometimes insists on a purely spiritual/figurative reading even when the narrative logic supports literal geographic and national restoration.

A clear summary of the critique:​

One of the strongest criticisms against replacement theology: Replacement theology often relies on interpretive shortcuts—equivocation, proof-texting, and non sequiturs—rather than establishing, from the text, that God’s covenant promises to Israel are revoked or permanently transferred.

Replacement theology inadvertently casts ALL God's promises into the arena of perpetual doubt and criticism, which leads to an outcome whereby one may then even question the promises for the gifting of our very salvation through faith!

MM