Daniel 9:25 - the messiah the prince

[TribulationSigns]

You claim that the temple was Christ's body.

No, I did not merely "claim" this. The inspired text itself explicitly states it: "But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). The interpretation is not my invention, nor is it a spiritualized guess. The Holy Spirit through John tells us exactly what Jesus meant. If you reject that identification, you are not arguing against my interpretation—you are arguing against the inspired explanation given by Scripture itself.

So I merely substituted your claim for the plain words of Inspired Scripture.

This is a false accusation. I did not replace Scripture; I followed Scripture. John himself moves from the literal temple misunderstanding of the Jews to the true meaning of Christ's words. The Jews understood Jesus' statement according to the immediate physical context, but John tells us they misunderstood Him: "But he spake of the temple of his body." The "plain words" of Scripture include verse 21. You cannot isolate Jesus' statement while ignoring the inspired commentary that follows it.

The resulting context is your context, not mine.

No, the context belongs to the Holy Spirit, not to either of us. The context is determined by the whole passage, not by the assumptions of the reader. The Jews' interpretation was based on the physical temple, but John's inspired explanation reveals that their understanding was incomplete. The question is not whether the Jews initially thought Jesus meant Herod's temple—the text tells us they did. The question is whether they understood Him correctly. John clearly says they did not.

So you're complaining about the Scripture without your context, and your're complaining about the Scripture with your context.

This is a meaningless accusation because I am not complaining about Scripture at all. I am pointing out that you are stopping at the same misunderstanding the Jews had. The Jews appealed to the physical temple because they did not understand the spiritual reality Christ was revealing. The very error John records is that they interpreted Christ's words only according to the earthly structure standing before them.

Such is the nonsense resulting when your gnostified hyperspiritualizations are substituted for the inerrant words of Inspired Scripture..

Calling something "gnostic" does not make it so. Gnosticism denies the goodness of creation and rejects the incarnation of Christ. But identifying Christ's body as the true temple is not Gnosticism—it is the explicit teaching of the New Testament. In fact, refusing to see Christ as the fulfillment of the temple imagery risks doing the opposite: clinging to the shadow while ignoring the reality.

Jesus Himself taught that the temple pointed beyond itself: "I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple" (Matthew 12:6). The author of Hebrews likewise explains that the earthly sanctuary was a "shadow of heavenly things" (Hebrews 8:5). Recognizing fulfillment is not "hyperspiritualization"; it is biblical interpretation.

The real problem is not that I have spiritualized Scripture. The problem is that you have accepted the Jews' initial misunderstanding as the final meaning, while the inspired apostle explicitly corrects that misunderstanding. Ouches!

The plain reading of John 2 is not merely "Jesus spoke about a physical building." The plain reading includes the inspired explanation: "He spake of the temple of His body."

Deal with it. Selah!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why can't it simply be determined from the text itself? But that doesn't mean we disregard relevant texts outside of these texts. These other texts would be a 2nd witness, so to speak.

Daniel 9:25 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.

Notice what verse 25 plainly says---to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks

That equals 69 weeks are involved in regard unto the Messiah the Prince.

Then in verse 26 we notice this--And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself

Except we need to also consider verse 27 before deciding about when He is cutoff---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

That means from the time that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince until He is cutoff, it involves 69 and 1/2 weeks. Once these 69 and 1/2 weeks have gone by, the Messiah the Prince has already come and has already left. Unless one has a dispute that His first coming happened. Or unless one has a dispute that His ascension back into heaven occurred shortly after he was cutoff, and that He is still bodily in heaven as we speak.

Compared with---and the people of the prince that shall come

We know this verse should be understood like such--the prince that shall come--as in a future event in relation to the first 69 and 1/2 weeks. Therefore, it is not reasonable to take the prince that shall come to be meaning the Messiah unless one has an answer for what coming of Christ took place after the first 69 and 1/2 weeks, yet prior to His bodily return in the end of this age.

I don't have an answer for that nor would anyone have an answer for that if they view the coming in Matthew 24:30 in the same manner as me, that it is meaning His bodily return in the end of this age.

No matter how you look at it, this part--the prince that shall come--involves a coming of a prince post that of the first 69 and 1/2 weeks.

That is simply not true. It's talking about a prince who was to come at some point in the future from the time the prophecy was given. Nothing in the text says that the prince that shall come had to come some time after the first 69 and 1/2 weeks. I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion, but I'm not seeing any basis for it at all. The text does not say that the prince who shall come would come after the Messiah comes.