It Shall Be An Everlasting Covenant With Them

[Covenanter]

I'm interested in what you will add to this, because I'm not understanding your reference to "The tragedy of that teaching is that it takes a wonderful prophecy of the Messiah and applies it to the Antichrist."

 

Are you saying that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is the Messiah and not the "prince that shall come" of the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary?

 

I would say, "Yes." We need to understand the literal English construction before we attempt interpretation. The whole passage is about Messiah & his saving work. The exile was 70 years, now completed. There were all sorts of events during those 70 years, reported by Jeremiah, Ezekiel & Daniel. Different events in Jerusalem & various places in Babylonia, but the 70 years was continuous, & ended. Now the prophecy is for 70 weeks - a further 70x7 years & then Messiah's saving work will be finished:

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.

That summarises the saving work of Messiah. That great shout from the cross, "It is finished," that rent the temple curtain from top to bottom was a declaration that all the typical sacrifices & offerings - that could not open the way to God - were now finished. The prophesied new covenant was now in force. Jesus explained on the Emmaus road, & to the Apostles that:

Luke 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

 

I don't think v. 25 needs comment.

 

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.

"After" suggests during week 70 & possible beyond. If week 70 begins with Jesus' anointing, then Calvary is mid-week, & if his triumphal entry, then Stephen's martyrdom marks the cessation as the Jewish leaders were declared "uncircumcised." Either way the prophecy is of a continuous 70 weeks. Killing Stephen spread the Gospel wider.

 

A literal reading (26) is that Messiah would be killed for the sins of his people, and one consequence will be the invasion of a prince & his army to destroy Jerusalem & the temple. Meanwhile, (27) Messiah will confirm the covenant with those who believe. Remember Daniel has been reading Jeremiah, & praying about his 70 year prophecy. He would have known about the new covenant prophecy also - certainly Gabriel did. So he confirms the new covenant during his earthly ministry, & through the Apostles confirms it with the thousands who believed the Gospel. Note:

Luke 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

 

Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

There is no suggestion of a spurious covenant made by antichrist, nor by the prince that shall come.

 

Your difficulty is you will  not accept the possibility that Messiah himself will cause the desolation of the city & sanctuary. By the invading prince. Jesus' parable of the vineyard, & Moses' prediction of Messiah & Peter's warning say that that is God's action:

 

Mark 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

 

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

 

We sang Psalm 95 today - Rejoice in our God who is altogether good BUT don't harden your hearts.

10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Hebrews repeats that warning & applies it to his readers - the 40 years were fast running out.

[Invicta]

Thank you Ian.

 

I don't think I could say it better than that.

 

Six things only were to be fulfilled in the 70 weeks and they are all given in verse 24, and were all fulfilled by the Messiah.

 

The prince who was to come did come and his people did destroy the city and sanctuary (against his orders) so yes, perfectly fulfilled, it was the people of the prince who was to come that destroyed the sanctuary, not the prince.

 

The "he" in verse 27 must then refer back to Messiah, as the prince was not the subject of verse 26, but his people. This was not included in the list of v24, so as Ian said, was a result of their rejection of the Messiah, not only during the earthly ministry of Jesus, but the ministry of the disciples until God sent the gospel to the gentiles, about ½ week after the crucifiction.

[DaveW]

Covenanter, my difficulty is that you ignore the order of events in the passage itself.
Messiah is not cut off in the midst of the week, but at the end of the 69th week.

The sacrifice and OBlation continued until the Temple was destroyed. The passage does not talk about the effectiveness of the sacrifice, the actual sacrifice.
That means that the ceasing of the sacrifice is not the cutting off of Messiah.
This fits the order of events in the passage - your way does not. You way mixes the events out of their stated order.
And it also ignores the fact that the action of the sacrifice continued after the death of Christ.

[AVBibleBeliever]

God promised that Abraham's seed will possess the land reaching to the Euphrates:

 

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

 

Joshua 1:4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.

That promise was also given to Israel.  Why is it only the verse in Genesis was quoted and not these to show that this was not to Abraham's decedents via Ismael as well?  Either people are not familiar with their Bibles or are forgetful hearer/readers of the word.

 

Deut 11:23 Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.
 24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.
 25 There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the LORD your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you.

 

Jos 1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
 

And that land possession will take place in the future.  This is why currently all of Islam is in a tizzy they do not want Israel to have their land.  They hope to get rid of Israel (as do replacement church movement) so their will be no one for God to give it to and fulfill His Word/Promise.  Israel will get this land but not until after JacOB's Trouble/the Great Tribulation.

[No Nicolaitans]

I'm interested in what you will add to this, because I'm not understanding your reference to "The tragedy of that teaching is that it takes a wonderful prophecy of the Messiah and applies it to the Antichrist."

 

Are you saying that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is the Messiah and not the "prince that shall come" of the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary?

 

 

 

I would say, "Yes." 

 

 

Thank you Ian.

 

Thank you for the response Covenanter (and Invicta). Sorry for cutting your quotes so short, but I just wanted you to know that I was responding to you. I can understand your reasoning behind what you're saying; however, I do have a few things that I don't agree with. Mind you, I'm not arguing...

 

I agree that the prophecy is about the Messiah; however, I notice that where it's speaking of the Messiah, it uses the proper noun "Messiah" expressly. However, another person is introduced into the prophecy in verse 26 - the prince that shall come. After including him, only the pronoun "he" is used throughout the remainder of the prophecy. This leads me to believe that the prophecy has taken a shift away from the Messiah, and attention is turned to the prince that shall come through to the end of the prophecy. 

 

We don't know which "covenant" is confirmed...we just know that it is some type of covenant. If this is referencing the "New Covenant" that Jeremiah spoke of, why is it only confirmed for one "week"? The New Covenant is an everlasting covenant.

 

I also don't see where Christ "caused" the sacrifice and OBlation to cease half-way through the "week". Christ's work did away with the reason for sacrifices and OBlations; however, Christ's sacrifice didn't make them cease.

 

Plus, applying that "week" to Christ's sacrifice doesn't fit the time-frame of Christ's death until the sacrifices and OBlations did actually cease...70 AD. That's much longer than one "week" if we can agree that one "week" is actually 7 years.

 

One final thought...the prophecy only states that "the people" of the prince that shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. It doesn't say the prince would do it or that he would even be there (as Invicta pointed out).

 

So yes, I do believe this is referring to the Antichrist rather than Christ. I believe that he (the Antichrist) will confirm some type of peace covenant with Israel...they have a few on the books right now that haven't been confirmed. I believe he will confirm this covenant for 7 years, and half-way through the seven years, he will break that covenant by proclaiming himself to be god (little "g" on purpose).

 

Again, thank you for your response.

[Covenanter]

I've just re-read Isaiah 66 - quoted by Stephen. Please read & consider how this prophecy relates to the worthless sacrifices that continued to be offered, until the destruction.

[No Nicolaitans]

When I read the opening verses of Isaiah 66 (part of which Stephen quoted), I see that as God relating to Israel how he viewed their sacrifices at that time.  In other words, God was telling that to the people who were alive when Isaiah received the revelation from God. Of course, the chapter does move into future events though.

 

I see it as God telling the people that their sacrifices and OBlations were abominable to him, because they were living their lives their own way and delighted in their sins...then to bring a sacrifice as an offering to God? Such hypocrisy!

 

God would much rather dwell in the heart of a man with a humble and contrite spirit (and who reveres his word) than to dwell in a house and receive offerings of hypocrisy. 

 

Of course, all of that can be relayed to any generation thereafter...I just don't see it as pertaining to a future generation only.

 

If I missed something that you were trying to relay, I apologize.

[Covenanter]

The whole of Acts 7 is relevant to this discussion - Stephen reminds them of the promise of the Messiah. (37) They rejected Moses (39) & now their Messiah. (51-53) Their sacrifices & offerings in the wilderness were were to false gods - not the LORD. (42-43 , Amos 5:25-27 ) He reminded them of Isaiah 66 , that temple worship could not of itself be worthy of a great & holy God, but a sign of God's favour. ( 45-47 ) Now the everlasting covenant sign of circumcision was declared uncircumcision because of their rejection of all it stood for.

 

They rejected their Messiah & his sacrifice - & the Gospel of forgiveness. Now sacrifice & offering were utterly vain - in the way Isaiah declares - & Daniel also prophesies. The sacrifices & offerings ceased. Only desolation & destruction remained for the unrepentant Israel.

 

But come to Jesus in repentance & faith for ALL the covenant promises.

[Invicta]

Covenanter, my difficulty is that you ignore the order of events in the passage itself.
Messiah is not cut off in the midst of the week, but at the end of the 69th week.

The sacrifice and OBlation continued until the Temple was destroyed. The passage does not talk about the effectiveness of the sacrifice, the actual sacrifice.
That means that the ceasing of the sacrifice is not the cutting off of Messiah.
This fits the order of events in the passage - your way does not. You way mixes the events out of their stated order.
And it also ignores the fact that the action of the sacrifice continued after the death of Christ.

 

Messiah was not cut off in the midst of the 69th week, but in the midst of the 70th week, after the 69th week.  Not at the end of the week, but after, ie in the 70th week.  The Most Holy, Messiah, was anointed at his baptism when the 69th week ended, He was presented to the Jews as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and from heaven by the Father : "This is my beloved son."  He was cut off in the midst of the week when he was crucified and from that time the sacrifice was of no effect.  When Jesus died the sacrifice was "once for all."   How can you then say that his death did not end the validity of the sacrifice?  

 

Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[beameup]

Messiah was not cut off in the midst of the 69th week, but in the midst of the 70th week, after the 69th week.  Not at the end of the week, but after, ie in the 70th week.  The Most Holy, Messiah, was anointed at his baptism when the 69th week ended, He was presented to the Jews as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and from heaven by the Father : "This is my beloved son."  He was cut off in the midst of the week when he was crucified and from that time the sacrifice was of no effect.  When Jesus died the sacrifice was "once for all."   How can you then say that his death did not end the validity of the sacrifice?  

 

Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

"The Most Holy" is not a person, it's a place... the "Holy of Holies" in the Temple to be exact. 

The hearers of Jesus clearly understood what he was talking about as the same "desecration"

of the Holy of Holies had occurred previously in 167 B.C. under Antiochus. 

Any other understanding of this prophecy would imply that Jesus was "confused" about future events.

 

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place  Mat 24:15

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)  Mark 13:14

 

 

It's already been built and is in storage in Jerusalem awaiting the reestablishment on the Temple Mount.  Time is short.... 

[Invicta]

"The Most Holy" is not a person, it's a place... the "Holy of Holies" in the Temple to be exact. 

The hearers of Jesus clearly understood what he was talking about as the same "desecration"

of the Holy of Holies had occurred previously in 167 B.C. under Antiochus. 

Any other understanding of this prophecy would imply that Jesus was "confused" about future events.

 

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place  Mat 24:15

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)  Mark 13:14

 

You missed one.

 

Luke 21:20 ¶  And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

 

No Jesus was not confused, he was speaking of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

 

Edited to add.

 

Antiochus did desecrate the temple but he was not an abomination of desolation.  That was the Roman army. Josephus mentions two desolations in his history of Jerusalem, First by Nebuchadnezzar, Second by Titus.

[Covenanter]

When I read the opening verses of Isaiah 66 (part of which Stephen quoted), I see that as God relating to Israel how he viewed their sacrifices at that time.  In other words, God was telling that to the people who were alive when Isaiah received the revelation from God. Of course, the chapter does move into future events though.

 

I see it as God telling the people that their sacrifices and OBlations were abominable to him, because they were living their lives their own way and delighted in their sins...then to bring a sacrifice as an offering to God? Such hypocrisy!

 

God would much rather dwell in the heart of a man with a humble and contrite spirit (and who reveres his word) than to dwell in a house and receive offerings of hypocrisy. 

 

Of course, all of that can be relayed to any generation thereafter...I just don't see it as pertaining to a future generation only.

 

If I missed something that you were trying to relay, I apologize.

 

It did pertain to the people Isaiah was addressing - see the opening chapters also. And to the people Amos addressed - Stephen quotes him also. Now why should Stephen quote Isaiah & address it directly to his accusers? Read again:

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an OBlation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

 

They are just killing animals NOT offering sacrifices. The whole worship system has become a worthless sham. Sacrifices had certainly ceased. Sacrifices & offerings did NOT continue until AD 70, even if they did kill animals. Stephen in effect declared that the appointed sacrifices had indeed ceased. They were now abominations - worse abominations than the Roman eagle standards.

 

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?

26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.

 

Whatever was going on in the temple was NOT sacrificial worship. Sacrifices & offerings had ceased. Absolutely, & for ever.

 

[Invicta]

Here is a hint of the desolation of Jerusalem from the arch of Titus in Rome, celebrating the fall and destruction of Jerusalem.

 

Images show, possibly the Ark of the Covenant (or perhaps the table of Shewbread), and the  Menorah,

 

'>

 

Other views,

 

 

 

'>

[Invicta]

"The Most Holy" is not a person, it's a place... the "Holy of Holies" in the Temple to be exact. 

The hearers of Jesus clearly understood what he was talking about as the same "desecration"

of the Holy of Holies had occurred previously in 167 B.C. under Antiochus. 

Any other understanding of this prophecy would imply that Jesus was "confused" about future events.

 

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place  Mat 24:15

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)  Mark 13:14

 

What is more holy than the Son of God?

[DaveW]

Messiah was not cut off in the midst of the 69th week, but in the midst of the 70th week, after the 69th week.  Not at the end of the week, but after, ie in the 70th week.  The Most Holy, Messiah, was anointed at his baptism when the 69th week ended, He was presented to the Jews as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and from heaven by the Father : "This is my beloved son."  He was cut off in the midst of the week when he was crucified and from that time the sacrifice was of no effect.  When Jesus died the sacrifice was "once for all."   How can you then say that his death did not end the validity of the sacrifice?  

 

Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

 

You misrepresent my words entirely.

 

In the midst of the week - I meant the 70th week - as I have said already in other places - I could have been more precise in my wording.

 

And I NEVER said that His death did not end the validity of the sacrifice - the PASSAGE does not talk about the validity of the sacrifice, but the ending of the actual sacrifice. This did not occur until the destruction of the temple.

 

You need to show proof that His baptism ended the 69th week - the Passage says He is CUT OFF not baptised after 69 weeks.

And the order of events includes things which happen - significant things - after Messiah is cut off(after 69 weeks) and BEFORE the covenant is confirmed for a week - that week is the 70th week.

There are events that happen between the end of 69 and the start of 70.

It is not me saying it - the passage says it.

And the events of the CUTTING OFF of Messiah - not Baptism - and the ending of the sacrifice and OBlation are not the same thing - the order of event, and the events mentioned between these two things make it such that it can not be so.

 

And to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR - again - the passage says the sacrifice and OBlation will cease - not that they would be made innefective. This did not happen at the death of Christ - the Jews continued the sacrifice and OBlation while the temple stood - and claim today that they will recommence the sacrifice and OBlation if the Temple is ever rebuilt. 

If you talk to a Jew today, they will tell you the ONLY reason they do not do the sacrifice today is because there is no temple.

 

Of course the sacrifice and OBlation are ineffective, but they will still do it if the temple is rebuilt - and they continued them until the temple was destroyed.

 

I can't believe you guys get so hung up on "he" in this passage, but totally ignore the plain language that says the actual sacrifice will cease, instead reading that it will be made ineffective.

It does not say "make ineffective - it says "cease".