Retrobyter:
Stating the Kingdom of God is at hand is no more of an "affirmation" of the Davidic Covenant than saying a car dealership having a tent sale results in a contract to buy. You cannot find any New Testament Apostle writing about the Davidic Covenant being "confirmed" by Jesus. It's just not there. You want to say Jesus "confirmed" a covenant with many for one 'seven.' It's not in Scripture. Jesus never "forced" a limited-time, seven-year covenant with anyone. Tell me the terms! With whom did He make this deal?
To fulfill all righteousness? The baptism by itself is not a covenant! That's what He and John the Baptist had to do in order for Jesus to later make the New Covenant by His death on the Cross! Again I reject your excuse for your take on things.
There is no covenant between Jesus and John the Baptist. It was a necessary step for Jesus. There is no "confirmation" unless you want to insist on some rendition of the Roman Catholic Confirmation which little girls go through. However, that is not what
gabar means. It is, however, how far people will strain at a lousy 400 year-old translation which may have meant "make firm" in Shakespearean times. How people are using it today is totally different, and it carries such a positive connotation that people like you are totally willing to ascribe it Jesus.
gabar is not always nice, and can be used for when a man rises up in defiance to God. Again: Jesus never used military might to advance His cause! One time when He said His Name, He bowled over a hundred crack Roman soldiers! He certainly had the means to command Angels to "force" the issue - but He never did. That is the nature of the Servant Messiah: the Lamb. This is wholly different than Jesus' other side: the Lion - being the Messiah King who comes with the second Advent.
The "he" of
gabar in Daniel 9:27 refers back to the last person mentioned: the ruler who will come. That is what the rules of Hebrew Grammar written by one of the world's most renowned experts on the subject today in America wrote: Watlke. I have gone through that Seminary-level reference work and I can find no rule which you insist exists. But that is not strange for you; you have a lot of peculiar takes on Hebrew which I find in no other reference work by accredited authors writing at the PhD level. The ruler who will come is further defined by Gabriel to be from the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary: the Romans. This is a perfect match for the end-time Roman Kingdom depicted in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Furthermore, against all protestations by "veteran" for a fifth Kingdom, the Roman world of the "North" is infused today with Islamic extremists: literally "mixing" in "Arabs" to the iron of Western Culture. As Daniel writes extensively of the nations, and as Daniel has mentioned the "little horn," the "King of the North" and his predecessor in time: Antiochus IV Epiphanes several times, it is not extraordinary that this evil person would figure so prominently in advancing the plot of the seventy 'seven's by initiating the one 'seven' by exertion of his "strength" - to prevail over all that is good, which he does waging war on the Saints and overcoming us. We are, by God's design, handed over.
Gabriel employs a story-telling device as old as story-telling itself: parallel construction. He does this by naming the end in Dan 9:26. So after the sixty-two 'sevens' come three conditions: 1. The Messiah is cut off. 2. The city and the sanctuary (Temple) are destroyed. and 3. War continues to the end and we have war today as an ongoing and constant state of affairs. This same end is present in Daniel 9:27. Thus there is an alignment at the end of times in verses 26 and 27. The difference is that Gabriel then backs up and tells us three very important facts about the last seven prophetic years of 360 days each. (Which you reject, but then you're a Partial Preterist too so you're going to insist upon things which go agianst the grain.) 1. It is started by ruler who will come "forcing" (prevail by strength or military might) a covenant (agreement, treaty, etc) with many for that one 'seven.' The one 'seven' remains whole. It is at the last of the time of man. 2. It has a midpoint. That midpoint is an abomination. Abomination in the Bible means idol worship is involved. And true to form, we see revealed in Rev 13:15-17 a talking image - unique in the Bible in that this one speaks! How much more of an abomination do you want? 3. The "end" is poured out on the desolator - the one who causes the desolation - the person responsible: the anti-Christ. And true to form again, the Bowl Judgments are last in God's Wrath and deprive the Man of Lawlessness his victory over South and East at Armageddon when the Lord and His Host sweep down and destroy his army and capture him and the false prophet alive to be judged in Heaven and thrown into the Lake of Fire while yet alive. There is a gap between the sixty-two 'sevens' and the one 'seven' of nearly 2000 years just as Hosea 6:2 foretold.
The first half of the one 'seven' (a period not of lunar years, nor of solar years, but of prophetic years of 360 days each) sees the rise of the anti-Christ and culminates at midpoint with the abomination - the talking image of the anti-Christ being erected in the (third) Temple in Jerusalem in the "Holy Place." That's what Jesus said. And Jesus revealed to Jonn the talking image - which is an abomination of the highest degree because while the prophets scoffed at idols that could not speak - this one does! Immediately with that midpoint abomination two laws are enacted which make the Great Tribulation so terrible. These are two laws which every Christian is told not to obey. Disobedience to these two laws means death unless you can live off the land totally apart from all civilization. The time between the two halves of the one 'seven' are back to back. They go from one to the other. While the Jews in Judea flee from the flood of troops from the North and are protected for the second half so that some Remnant of righteous Jews survive the one 'seven' to populate the Millennium, the evil one turns his attention to us and that results in the Great Tribulation. Rev 12:7 and Rev 12:14 describe the same time period: namely when the woman Israel is shielded from the anti-Christ's fourth terrible beast. 1260 days = 3 1/2 prophetic years.
Yes, we have much different perspectives. You have your 2D rendition of the Rapture, and I have another idea on how that is done. We have one thing in common though: and that is faith in Christ. Thank God our eschatology does not determine our salvation.
_________________________________________________
Mt 3:15 - "to fulfill" all righteousness. This reflects one of six conditions spelled out in Daniel 9:24 which only Jesus can do.
“To bring in everlasting righteousness” comes from the prim word,
bo and means
to come in, go in, go, and reflects the invitation Christ has to each of us to bring Him into our lives as the indwelling Holy Spirit. This aspect of fellowship with God was not known at all during the time before the Pentecost described in Acts. As such it reflects one of the mysteries of the Church not revealed otherwise in Old Testament prophecy. Until the Pentecost, man knew God through his physical manifestation. As Enoch walked with God, Abraham met with Him, Jacob wrestled with Him, Moses spoke with Him, Joshua conferred with Him, and the Prophets listened to Him, the one aspect missing was the indwelling Holy Spirit. As Jesus said;
JN 16:7
“But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.”
"To fulfill" in Mt 3;15 however, is in the Aorist tense, active voice and infinitive.
The aorist is said to be "
simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the 'punctiliar' tense. 'Punctiliar' in this sense means 'viewed as a single, collective whole,' a "one-point-in-time" action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.
The active voice establishes John and Jesus working to accomplish this.
The infinitive yields the addition "to" which sets the baptism as a condition which must be accomplished in order to perform a greater task. Only when Jesus tells John of this does John relent and so Jesus' Ministry begins. This act does not fulfill righteousness - it just allows it to be acomplished. Jesus' one purpose in being born was to die. It is only with His death and resurrection that we have any hope. Mt 3:15 does not fulfill righteousness - it just makes it possible to be fulfilled.
_______________________________
The "Davidic Covenant" comes with 2nd Samuel 7. In this chapter, God promises to David to establish "his" kingdom after David rests with his ancestors.
This promise carries no contractual or covenant requirement on David's part like circumcision or obedience. It is a promise. It is also prophetic. 2Sa 7:14 is especially tough to translate, and seemingly in most versions contradicts the theological insistence on Jesus' sinlessness as the perfect Lamb without blemish who died for our sins. Indeed, further word study on this verse.
In 2nd Samuel 7:14, reading it in the English, it states He, Jesus, will do wrong. For a test of theology, this verse would seem to contradict the prophetic nature in applying it to the Son of God, as Jesus has been held not to have sinned. So the natural reaction of the reader is to reject this passage in the Old Testament as relating prophetically to Jesus.
- 2SA 7: 14b When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. —NIV
- 2SA 7: 14b If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: —KJV
The determination whether this clause pertains to Jesus hinges on Scripture’s translation. Looking at the original Hebrew the entire phrase, “When he does wrong…” or alternately, “If he commit iniquity,” -no matter how the English translation is rendered- comes from just two words in the Hebrew,
‘asher ‘awon.
‘asher:
who,
which. “To be sure the preponderant use of ‘asher is as a normal relative, usually with an expressed antecedent…For example, one use of ‘asher is to express result: “ ‘So that’ if a man could number the dust of the earth” (Gen 13:16). Another is to express purpose: “Keep his statues…‘that’ it may go well with you” (or is this result? Deut 4:40)”—TWOT Vol. I, pg. 82.
So the first thing which the reader should understand is that like so many instances in the Hebrew language, a single word does double or even triple duty, having multiple meanings. It is clear the translators (as opposed to theologians) have latched onto the personal aspect of
‘asher because of the prominent use of “son.” However, there remains a perfectly good and alternate translation which renders an entirely different meaning to the passage in question as will be shown.
‘awon: iniquity, guilt, punishment. “We note in the first place that the noun is a collective…This notion of totality is also seen in the association of individual misdemeanor with that of the group: “The goat will carry on itself all their perversion/iniquities (plural)” (Lev 16:22); “…and the LORD struck him the perversion/iniquity (singular) of all of us” (Isa 53:6).”—TWOT Vol. II, pg. 650.
The theological application of
‘awon in the Servant Messiah passage of Isaiah 53:6 should not escape the reader’s attention. Jesus said the Scripture speaks of Him and so in that vein how could this passage describe Jesus? While no doubt exists in Isaiah 53, the contention here is, based on how these two significant words are legitimately translated, that 2nd Samuel 7 also speaks in a far-term reference to Jesus.
Another important aspect to this word study and going back to the original Hebrew is that we find the verbs in our English translations;
does or
commits, are not in the original Hebrew. As a lesson in sentence structure (which is rather academic) those words are only inferred by using the word
‘asher as a noun in the nominative case meaning:
who. Rather if
‘asher is used as a noun in the sense of
which, it functions to introduce a relative clause (a valid definition of the noun
which in both English and Hebrew). This then shifts the
‘asher from the nominative sense (where the son just mentioned is the antecedent and is so referenced,) and
‘asher is not the subject of the iniquity. The meaning of
‘asher then can be described of
as a result as in Deuteronomy 4:40 where on the basis of a condition another situation naturally results.
This alternate meaning of
‘asher to
which can describe a result and it can be read as “
which as a result of…” This then changes how
‘awon works in the sentence. Now it can take the objective of the prepositional phrase, being the result. This avoids having to infer
when and
does or
commits. The secondary meaning of
‘asher, which is not only allowed but also makes sense, removes the need for word additions in translation. In this use of
‘asher, it can carry its normal meaning as ‘which’ and that meaning can express an idea of a something following as a result.
Rather than to say the object of 2 Samuel 7:14, Jesus, personally did wrong, or committed iniquity, a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew would also to say that: “
which ‘
as the result of’ iniquity I will punish him...” (Christian theology would add the possessive “our” to the iniquity, but the condition remains despite its absence.) Reading this Scripture in an alternate way allows this verse to align with Christian theology that Christ did not sin but became sin for us.
_________________________________
Likewise, besides not comporting to the proper
quid pro quo of covenant relations whereby each party has some act to perform, the Davidic promise for a Kingdom then has us searching for the boundaries of this Kingdom and nothing could ever be so nebulous in all of Scripture. To define the Kingdom of God, which Jesus proclaims then has us bewildered to as to when it starts, and how much it encompasses. Doing a word search yields multiple answers which are seemingly contradictory. Therefore, I can not say that Jesus "confirmed" what was promised simply by starting His Ministry because, once again, Jesus does not perform any act of strength or might in accomplishing this which would conform to the Hebrew sense of
gabar. While the Christian might say Jesus
prevailed over death by His Resurrection, again, this is not a limited-time covenant, but one that is perpetual for the Church Age.
To insist that Jesus is the actor of Dan 9:27 simply falls flat on its face. It is not substantiated by Scripture even if one wants to dredge up the Davidic Covenant and link it to Jesus' pronouncement that the Kingdom of God is at hand - which as Mk 1:15 states is "near," but hardly the Millennium rule which the Messiah King ushers in.
