The "HE" of Daniel 9:27

[Rex]

Posted Today, 06:47 AM
Posted Today, 06:49 AM

Two min. from post to reply, thank you for considering and giving some thought to my post.

I'm very well aware that prophecy continues. WERE TALKING ABOUT 9:27 and the fulfillment of the 70th week.

This forced convent you speak of is the new covenant and yes you could say it is FORCED and it will be ENFORCED at the return of the Lord that established it.

 

[teleiosis]

I've already studied Daniel 9:24; you aren't presenting something I haven't seen before.

The parable of the wedding feast is also something I've studied, and it is not even germane to Daniel 9:27.

The covenant is for one 'seven.' It is with many. The person who forces it through is the last person mentioned by Gabriel: the ruler who will come. That ruler is defined by the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary: the Romans.

Jesus NEVER established a limited-time, seven-year covenant!
He is not going to ENFORCE something He didn't make when He comes back!

 

[Raeneske]

Just what does "confirm" mean to you? And please answer with more than "made firm."

Secondly, please show from the book of Acts that the Apostles stopped evangelizing the Jews after three and a half years.



You're the one that keeps insisting, along with the other three on this thread from its inception, that Jesus began the one 'seven.'

You keep saying that He was "in" the one 'seven' during His Ministry of the first Advent.

So if you want to say the one 'seven' has already been started, then do you differ with Ray and say the "he" of Dan 9:27 is someone else besides Jesus?

It's Rae, not Ray. Friendly reminder.

He confirmed, meaning he made his pact with many for a week. Not saying the pact was only a week long, but that during that week, he confirmed it with many. These many would be Israelites, and Israelites only. Then after Daniel's 70th week finished, the Gospel was not only to the Jews, it went out to the Gentiles. Remember, the Jew First, and then the "Greek". I'll look in acts in a little bit.

 

[teleiosis]

Ray started the thread.

Jesus did not prevail by strength or might any covenant for one 'seven.' You keep saying it and it simply isn't true.

 

[Rex]

So is your objective to continue in this thread to simply disagree
Its pretty evident to me from your replies that you really can't separate or distinguish between to 70th week
and some sort of limited covenant for one 7. If you can't make the distinction between the time "frame" of the Messiahs new covenant and the covenant itself continued conversation is pointless.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Retro, Your Words: "Well, actually, that too is an assumption on your part. What you have are three time frames: "time, times, and half a time," "forty and two months," and "one thousand two hundred and threescore years."

Is it safe to assume you meant "days" here?

 

[Rex]

Hi Retro, Your Words: "Well, actually, that too is an assumption on your part. What you have are three time frames: "time, times, and half a time," "forty and two months," and "one thousand two hundred and threescore years."

Is it safe to assume you meant "days" here?

Good question, and to do as you did "safe to assume" I'll say he only applies days in Rev, when its clearly day for year everywhere else. This makes as much sense to me as calling the {52 weeks x 2000 years =} 104,000 thousands week the 70th week. The text say the Messiah was cut off but not for himself. It says nothing about cutting the time period outlined.
There is no other way to satisfy or account for the displaced 70th week or half week in his case.

The problem with this verse and people is you take away their 70th lost week and their anti christ in 9:27 their interpretations fall apart like a house of cards. Thats a very insecure felling I'm sure.

 

[Spirit Covenant]

Other than Dan 9:27 where stands that written? Nowhere. All you four and Retrobyter have are you five saying it!

Saying Dan 9:27 was "confirmed" by Jesus (because "confirm" is such a nice, positive word) in offering up an interpretation of Dan 9:27 and pointing to the three years of Jesus' Ministry is not proof. Give me the dates that Jesus was baptised and was crucified. Let's compare them and see if they come up to the exacting standards that each half has in the book of Revelaiton (1260 days - 42 months - three and a half years). (The seventy 'sevens' use prophetic years of 360 days each where each month is 30 days.)

Where are the Apostles proclaiming this great truth? Wouldn't Peter and John have something to say to the Jews if Jesus "strengthened" the Davidic Covenant? Wouldn't they plead with their fellow Jews as Paul wanted to (and did) that they had a limited-time offer at hand? Wouldn't Paul have used this in his arguments to sway his countrymen when he did return to Israel?

If this is such a big thing, and it is, and the Apostles were fairly liberal in saying OT prophecy concerning the Day of the Lord was being fulfilled - where is the proclamation of a limited-time, seven-year covenant with many being the fulfillment of the seventy 'sevens?'

It's not in the Bible. Now an omission is not a commission of an error, but without some bit of Scripture to say Jesus provided a limite-time seven-year covenant at the start of His Ministry when He did no such thing until the end - falls flat on its face.

gabar as an adjective means to be mighty, be strong, and carries with it the sense of war as in fighting or military. As a verb, it means to prevail, usually by strength or military might. It can be used for God in the positive as in "His strong arm" and it can be used for man in the negative as when a man stands up to God in defiance. In translation, since to prevail is a transitive verb, to be used with the object of a covenant, which is any agreement, treaty, covenant or contract between two or more individuals in the Hebrew, the idea of prevailing combined with military strength is best conveyed by the simple verb: to force. An excellent example of how an agreement can be forced with many was illustrated when the Israeli army forcibly evicted Israeli citizens from the homes and settlements in the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Roadmap. gabar carries more meaning in the Hebrew than just to strengthen. This is not unusual for Hebrew words which can carry multiple meanings at times.

Jesus did not use force, strength, or military might to die on the cross. He gave up His Life without any resistance.

And Retro: try as you might you are missing the key ingredient with all your green cut and paste: there is no covenant made by Jesus in announcing the Kingdom of God being at hand. Jesus never tells the Jews He is there to "strengthen" the Davidic Covenant. All the verses you have of that are in reference to David and the Covenant. You have not proved your case, any more than I accept your spelling, definitions, and grammar over the acknowledged experts in the field of Hebrew language and grammar today.

Denial is a very strong human motivation, and when you're in it, you can't see it.

You are the one in denial. Christ indeed confirmed a covenant with many for a half a week and was cut off in the midst of the week. Then by His two prophets at the end will take away the Lords daily sacrifice to men. Then on the wing of abominations those who claim they are christians will start eating people and drinking blood because of a lack of everything in the siege and desperate straits in which their enemy God shall distress them at all their gates.

 

[Rex]

You are the one in denial. Christ indeed confirmed a covenant with many for a half a week and was cut off in the midst of the week. Then by His two prophets at the end will take away the Lords daily sacrifice to men. Then on the wing of abominations those who claim they are christians will start eating people and drinking blood because of a lack of everything in the siege and desperate straits in which their enemy God shall distress them at all their gates.

I see you've accounted for your missing half week. Eating people and drinking blood "zombie movie?" or bible verse?

 

[teleiosis]

So is your objective to continue in this thread to simply disagree
Its pretty evident to me from your replies that you really can't separate or distinguish between to 70th week
and some sort of limited covenant for one 7. If you can't make the distinction between the time "frame" of the Messiahs new covenant and the covenant itself continued conversation is pointless.

There is no separation between the "70th week" and the one 'seven.' By the way, after naming them "seventy 'sevens'" Gabriel calls the "70th week" you refer to as the one 'seven.' All I am doing is staying consistent with how Gabriel labels it. They are the same thing; people just it the seventieth seven mostly.

Yes, I simply disagree on one hand, but more importantly; I am calling on you Preterists and Partial Preterists to substantiate your simple "this means that" claim of interpretation. You're not Preterists? Oh yes you are on this point!

You keep saying the most preposterous things as if they are true! I think I ought to let you wallow in your error because talking with you is pointless - you never answer the hard questions, and if you do, you ignore the inconsistency that the only covenant Jesus made was at the end of His Ministry and not at the beginning - and even then - it's not for any limited time - AND there were no desolations (which have been decreed by the way) that were poured out on the desolator.

 

[Rex]

So now you want to have a mud pitching war.
Enjoy yourself

BTW thats what I thought you here to kick dirt

There is no separation between the "70th week" and the one 'seven.' By the way, after naming them "seventy 'sevens'" Gabriel calls the "70th week" you refer to as the one 'seven.' All I am doing is staying consistent with how Gabriel labels it. They are the same thing; people just it the seventieth seven mostly.

Yes, I simply disagree on one hand, but more importantly; I am calling on you Preterists and Partial Preterists to substantiate your simple "this means that" claim of interpretation. You're not Preterists? Oh yes you are on this point!

You keep saying the most preposterous things as if they are true! I think I ought to let you wallow in your error because talking with you is pointless - you never answer the hard questions, and if you do, you ignore the inconsistency that the only covenant Jesus made was at the end of His Ministry and not at the beginning - and even then - it's not for any limited time - AND there were no desolations (which have been decreed by the way) that were poured out on the desolator.

 

[teleiosis]

You are the one in denial. Christ indeed confirmed a covenant with many for a half a week and was cut off in the midst of the week. Then by His two prophets at the end will take away the Lords daily sacrifice to men. Then on the wing of abominations those who claim they are christians will start eating people and drinking blood because of a lack of everything in the siege and desperate straits in which their enemy God shall distress them at all their gates.

I'm in denial and you talk about cannibals? Get a grip man. This kind of talk is why people think that eschatology is for kooks.

Jesus did not force a covenant with many by strength or might at the beginning of His Ministry. Talking with you is senseless; you lack the critical thinking to test the very concept you espouse.

So now you want to have a mud pitching war.
Enjoy yourself

No, I'm not getting stuck on your Preterist tar baby. If you people want to insist on the silliest thing and take the smallest bit of language to whatever lengths you need to believe in some nice, warm, fuzzy rendition of the end-times - have at it.

You all can play in this thread of your own making and congratulate yourselves on how spiritual you are and how discerning you all are. I think it's all nonsense and you're unable to see the basic incongruities in your eschatology.

 

[Rex]

Thats what I thought your in this thread to kick dirt.

Don't you and the other prophets have enough threads and arguments to keep you happy

The real problem is without this verse interpreted as antichrist and a displaced week all of yours and theirs interpretations come tumbling down.

This is the master key that holds all your BS together

Pretty amazing isn't, it by pulling the pin Daniel 9:27 all the false prophets come crashing down

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Rex.

Retrobyter
when you get a chance I'd like to hear the rest of this comment



never mind I found your explanation in another thread



Funny how all the prophets always mention the rejection isn't it

Just wouldn't be official if men did anoint Yeshua I see now your reference John TB. The problem is the Father in Heaven recognized it and anointed Him.
Had they anointed Him and made him king wouldn't that have made all the OT prophets liers as well?

What a tangled web we weave.

It's not so different. See, I, too, believe that the Father recognized Yeshua`s right to be King and anointed Him at His baptism. Then, when He was fully rejected and left the earth at the ascension, He was fulfilling Luke 19:

Luke 19:11-28
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.
KJV

Verse 12 through 14 are already fulfilled or being fulfilled. We are waiting for the fulfillment of verse 15 through 27. Those verses here won't be fulfilled until Yeshua` haMashiach returns as enforces the Kingdom that His Father has given Him.

 

[Rex]

I was referring to your half week comment and the Jews not accepting Jesus and declaring him king as you said in another thread.
Instead the let him be killed and because of this you displace the latter half of the week, yet to be fulfilled.

Hers the comment I found from you

the Tribe of Judah, who were SUPPOSED to anoint Him as their King when Yeshua` offered Himself as their King, during the first half of the seventieth Seven, the 3.5 years of the "ministry of His first Advent," failed to do so. In rejecting Him as their King, they plunged Isra'el into a 2000-year-long tribulation, "book-ended" by the two halves of the last Seven! (The "midpoint of the seventieth Seven" is HARDLY a "point!")

So, technically, there will be 3.5 years left to anoint Yeshua` as Isra'el's King,

And my comments

Funny how all the prophets always mention the rejection isn't it

Just wouldn't be official if men did anoint Yeshua I see now your reference John TB. The problem is the Father in Heaven recognized it and anointed Him.
Had they anointed Him and made him king wouldn't that have made all the OT prophets liers as well?

What a tangled web we weave.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So now correct me If i'm wrong, but you posting that parable and the bold part, I take it that you believe that Jesus left money "responsibility" to every Jew. Not just those that recognized him. Because that's what the parable is about. What you do with the gift Jesus gives to you. Its about Jesus looking and Judging every man "independently" according what he has been given "his works".

If not then please explain your point using the parable

 

[dragonfly]

I am dipping my toe in this discussion fleetingly, because clearly, 'Messiah the Prince' is superior to 'the people of the prince that shall come'. Isn't the 'prince that shall come', a spiritual power rather than a person, whereas Messiah is both, and is commanding that inferior prince?

The destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied by Jesus and Jerusalem has not been the same since. The war has not ended.

The cross (the sceptre of his power, the rod of iron) was used by the Lord of Hosts to vanquish His great enemy. That's how He prevailed. It was forced upon Him in the end, but He was using it to force upon Satan His own will. The paradox of the cross is that everything must bow to it's rationale.


Does anyone get that, except perhaps Rex?

 

[Dan57]

I am dipping my toe in this discussion fleetingly, because clearly, 'Messiah the Prince' is superior to 'the people of the prince that shall come'. Isn't the 'prince that shall come', a spiritual power rather than a person, whereas Messiah is both, and is commanding that inferior prince?

I believe Daniel 9:27 is referring to the anti-christ. In verse 26, "prince" is not capitalized as it is in vs 25 where its referring to Christ (Messiah the Prince). The anti-christ (prince) will pretend to be Christ, confirming the new testament covenant, but mid-tribulation, he will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, making himself out to be a god. He (Satan) is the desolator, who commits this abomination. These verses are describing the end time deception that Christ prophesied about in Mark 13:14. That's my understanding and opinion.

 

[Rex]

I believe Daniel 9:27 is referring to the anti-christ. In verse 26, "prince" is not capitalized as it is in vs 25 where its referring to Christ (Messiah the Prince). The anti-christ (prince) will pretend to be Christ, confirming the new testament covenant, but mid-tribulation, he will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, making himself out to be a god. He (Satan) is the desolator, who commits this abomination. These verses are describing the end time deception that Christ prophesied about in Mark 13:14. That's my understanding and opinion.

Then please make a case If you like, but i would appreciate it If you glanced back at what has been said.

describing the end time deception that Christ prophesied about in Mark 13:14. That's my understanding and opinion.

It's rather ironic that I find this verse key to end time deception not pointing to it

in short I find 9:27 as being the deception

 

[John_8:32]

Just to throw in a couple of pennies...

Dan 9:27 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.

Covenant:

H1285
בּרית
berı̂yth
ber-eeth'
From H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): - confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league.

In every case in the book of Daniel, when the word berı̂yth is used, it is used in context of the Holy Covenant...

Dan 9:4 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;

Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

In verse 22, the prince of the covenant is taken to mean the High Priest by most scholars.

Dan 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

Dan 11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

Dan 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

The he in Dan 9:27 is Christ, who was cut off in the midst of a week, 3-1/2 years of seven and also crucified on Wednesday, the fourth day of the week.

The remaining 3-1/2 years of His week of ministry could be the 3-1/2 years of tribulation and Day of the Lord prior to His return, or it could possibly mean 3-1/2 years of ministry after His return. The heathen will not be converted instantly as shown by...

Eze 38:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
Eze 38:11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,

This is not the same event that occurs at the end of the Millenium in Rev 20:7-9. That is probably fuel for another thread as it takes much quoting from Ezek 38 & 39 and Rev 20 to show these are different occurrences.

 

[Rex]

The remaining 3-1/2 years of His week of ministry could be the 3-1/2 years of tribulation and Day of the Lord prior to His return, or it could possibly mean 3-1/2 years of ministry after His return. The heathen will not be converted instantly as shown by...

In the NT Jesus the Messiah was cut of the cross His flesh. But this hardly reflects and ending and a future continuance. He appeared before the disciples He organized them He empowered them in the HS and this new covenant was presented to the Jews exclusively for the next 3.5 years just as Gabriel outlined.
24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city,

And here's the other deal a proper understanding of Jesus work completed at the cross.

To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

John 12:31
1 Peter 3:22
Eph 1:20-23
Matthew 28:18

John 19:30

or an incomplete work and and uncompleted 70th means, you don't understand the finished work of the Messiahs salvation plan.

now all the post 70th week prophesy's and future events are still outstanding from the end of the 70th week forward, but this prophesy has been fulfilled.