Where Is The New 'temple' Going To Be Built? Inside The Walls Or Out?

[Alan]

Amen and amen! Good preahin' and teahin'.

 

Alan

[Covenanter]

Sir, 

 

All that is saying is that the walls had changed and the city had grown. The temple mount was then...where it is now. It's hard to dismiss those HUGE foundation stones that Herod put in place under the Temple Mount.

 

Zechariah prophesied for Jerusalem:

And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein: Zec. 2:1-5

 

No, just the fulfilment of Jesus Christ's prophecy that not one stone of the temple (that they could see) would be left standing on another; they would be thrown down.

 

I'm thinking that Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of desolate might differ from God's.

 

We have to ask ourselves, "Who is the HE that shall confirm the covenant?" Is it Christ, or is it someone else? If we look at the previous verse, we will see who the "he" is...

 

Dan 9:26-27
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.

 

Messiah has been cut off, and another person is mentioned..."the prince" of the people who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. He (the prince of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary) is the one who will confirm the covenant.

 

News flash: Jesus rose from the dead 3 days after he was cut off. That was in the midst of the week after the 69th week. And Daniel 9 begins at v. 1. As we read the chapter, Daniel is praying & confessing the things that will be put right within the 70 weeks by Messiah, for whom Jerusalem will be rebuilt. 

 

The view has been brought forward that "he" is the Lord Jesus Christ. The view has also been brought forth that the "he" was General Titus. However, verse 27 flows out of verse 26, and the last person mentioned in verse 26 is "the prince"; therefore, the "he" of verse 27 is continuing with that person...the prince of the people who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

We would expect Gabriel to be prophesying about Messiah, not some impostor.  The destruction was the consequence of the rejection of the Messiah.  

 

That leaves us two options...since Jesus Christ wasn't the prince of the Romans.

 

1. "The prince" was General Titus. If so, what covenant did he confirm, and when did he perform the abomination of desolation in the temple?

2. "The prince" is unknown; however, other portions of scripture teach us who this "prince" is...the Antichrist...and this is a still future event that will happen in the rebuilt temple which will be located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

 

Messiah is anointed in v. 24, Jerusalem is rebuilt for him in v. 25, He is cut off, but not for himself in v. 26, doing the saving work spelled out in v. 24, so we can expect Messiah to be the subject of v. 27. The "he" is Jesus.

 

What covenant is Gabriel referring to? Daniel knew all about God's dealings with Israel by covenant, he even appeals to the covenant keeping God:

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; 

We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:  Dan. 9:4-5

 

 Israel had suffered the consequences of breaking the covenant - see Lev. 26. Messiah will confirm the covenant. as indeed he did. He was born under the covenant of law, & kept every detail perfectly. As man & for man, he suffered for our breach of covenant, so making a new covenant in his own blood, so that all those who come to Jesus in repentance & faith, claiming his saving work, are welcomed into the new covenant.

 

Note that Peter preached in those terms:

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.

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. Acts 3:25-26 

 

Keep it Scriptural & keep it simple - as Brother Larry requested on another thread. Prophecy is about Jesus Christ, not some impostor. 

 

Sadly at the end of the 70 weeks, the Jewish leaders showed their absolute rejection of their Messiah. Stephen, in the power of the Holy Spirit, declared them "uncircumcised." The old covenant was finished. He declared the temple worthless. Acts 7:48-51 There CANNOT be another man-made temple of God. 

[No Nicolaitans]

What covenant is Gabriel referring to? 

 

I have an idea, but I really don't know what covenant he's referring to, but this I do know...

 

"Confirm" doesn't mean what we think it means today...such as "to verify". It means "to strengthen or make stronger". To me, it makes no sense that the Lord Jesus Christ could strengthen a covenant made by an Almighty God. Any covenant that God makes is already as strong as it's going to be; there is no need to "make it stronger".

 

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that "the prince" could (and will) make a covenant stronger; which is in my opinion, a peace covenant. Israel already has 2 peace covenants with surrounding countries today; however, they have yet to be "confirmed"...they are just words on paper with no meaning, because the other side doesn't hold to it. I believe the Antichrist will possibly "confirm" one of those.

 

Confirm - to strengthen or make stronger. This indicates a pre-existing covenant in need of being made stronger.

[Covenanter]

I have an idea, but I really don't know what covenant he's referring to, but this I do know...

 

"Confirm" doesn't mean what we think it means today...such as "to verify". It means "to strengthen or make stronger". To me, it makes no sense that the Lord Jesus Christ could strengthen a covenant made by an Almighty God. Any covenant that God makes is already as strong as it's going to be; there is no need to "make it stronger".

 

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that "the prince" could (and will) make a covenant stronger; which is in my opinion, a peace covenant. Israel already has 2 peace covenants with surrounding countries today; however, they have yet to be "confirmed"...they are just words on paper with no meaning, because the other side doesn't hold to it. I believe the Antichrist will possibly "confirm" one of those.

 

Confirm - to strengthen or make stronger. This indicates a pre-existing covenant in need of being made stronger.

 

Have you done a Bible search for confirm* covenant ? See e.g. Galatians 3:

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

 

As I indicated in my previous post, Daniel was concerned that the covenant was seriously broken by Israel. Dan. 9:4 Israel was without strength, powerless to keep the covenant. Read Hebrews 8. That was their prOBlem. A broken covenant brings judgement. On Israel's behalf, Messiah kept the terms of the old covenant to perfection, & so accomplished every aspect of Dan. 9:24

 

It is totally out of the context to make the prophecy relate to some unknown covenant made by an impostor. A simple literal reading OBviously requires the 70 weeks to be 70 weeks, ending a few years after Jesus' ministry. 

 

Even more simply, God made covenant promises to Abraham that his descendants hopelessly broke. Jesus took on the seed of Abraham ( Mat. 1:1 ) and kept the terms of the covenant to perfection. As Zechariah prophesied:

To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,  Luke 1:67-79

[No Nicolaitans]

That would make perfect sense, and I agree with the majority of what you are saying; however, the "he" who confirms the covenant is the prince of the people who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

As I said before, the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't the prince of the Romans.

[LindaR]

Antichrist will arise out of and rule over the revived Roman empire. He is the prince of the people who destroyed Jerusalem after Christ's death. This was Rome.

 

Daniel 9:26 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.
Daniel 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.

[Covenanter]

That would make perfect sense, and I agree with the majority of what you are saying; however, the "he" who confirms the covenant is the prince of the people who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

As I said before, the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't the prince of the Romans.

Why do you think THE covenant to be confirmed wasn't the previously mentioned broken covenant? 

 

Surely it makes perfect sense that Messiah should be the "he" who confirms the covenant? He did! Gal. 3:17

 

The Messiah is the subject of the 70 weeks prophecy.

[No Nicolaitans]

Why do you think THE covenant to be confirmed wasn't the previously mentioned broken covenant? 

 

Surely it makes perfect sense that Messiah should be the "he" who confirms the covenant? He did! Gal. 3:17

 

The Messiah is the subject of the 70 weeks prophecy.

 

Why do I think that?

 

1. The covenant is confirmed by the prince of the people who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

2. The covenant will be strengthened (confirmed) for one week (7 years). Did it take Christ 7 years to strengthen the old covenant?

 

I believe the subject of the 70 weeks' prophecy includes the Messiah, but the main subject is the 70 weeks themselves and what all is entailed therein.

[LindaR]

The context of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is GOD'S PLAN for the nation of ISRAEL.

[No Nicolaitans]

The context of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is GOD'S PLAN for the nation of ISRAEL.

 

Much more concise than my explanation.   

[Covenanter]

The context of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is GOD'S PLAN for the nation of ISRAEL.

Yes, full redemption by Messiah accomplishing the programme of v. 24, completed when he was cut off for them, & rose again, & confirmed the covenant with many as they turned to God in repentance & faith, & were baptised in the name of Jesus. 

 

In the context of this thread the temple with its rituals & sacrifices would be redundant. 

[No Nicolaitans]

Yes, full redemption by Messiah accomplishing the programme of v. 24, completed when he was cut off for them, & rose again, & confirmed the covenant with many as they turned to God in repentance & faith, & were baptised in the name of Jesus. 

 

In the context of this thread the temple with its rituals & sacrifices would be redundant. 

 

Catholicism, with its rituals and sacrifices are also redundant...yet it continues.

 

Just because God doesn't accept something doesn't stop man from doing things that he thinks are pleasing to God or possibly bring him favor with God. Though vain, the Jews will once again start temple worship. Sir...they would do it right now if they could.

[No Nicolaitans]

Yes, full redemption by Messiah accomplishing the programme of v. 24, completed when he was cut off for them, & rose again, & confirmed the covenant with many as they turned to God in repentance & faith, & were baptised in the name of Jesus. 

 

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.

 

Covenanter, I'm not trying to argue with you. If "he" is Christ, and "he" confirmed the covenant with many as you assert...then it only lasted for 7 years (one week). That leaves a lot of people out.

 

If I remember correctly, you assert that Christ confirmed the old covenant through his sinless life. Confirm means to strengthen...not verify. Therefore, using the correct definition of "confirm", you are literally saying that Christ made the old covenant even stronger...and that would leave everybody out.

[Invicta]

Sir, 

 

All that is saying is that the walls had changed and the city had grown. The temple mount was then...where it is now. It's hard to dismiss those HUGE foundation stones that Herod put in place under the Temple Mount.

 

No, just the fulfilment of Jesus Christ's prophecy that not one stone of the temple (that they could see) would be left standing on another; they would be thrown down.

 

Yes, That was fulfilled.  "Zion was ploughed like a field."

 

I'm thinking that Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of desolate might differ from God's.

 

We have to ask ourselves, "Who is the HE that shall confirm the covenant?" Is it Christ, or is it someone else? If we look at the previous verse, we will see who the "he" is...

 

Dan 9:26-27
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.

 

Messiah has been cut off, and another person is mentioned..."the prince" of the people who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. He (the prince of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary) is the one who will confirm the covenant.

 

The view has been brought forward that "he" is the Lord Jesus Christ. The view has also been brought forth that the "he" was General Titus. However, verse 27 flows out of verse 26, and the last person mentioned in verse 26 is "the prince"; therefore, the "he" of verse 27 is continuing with that person...the prince of the people who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

That leaves us two options...since Jesus Christ wasn't the prince of the Romans.

 

1. "The prince" was General Titus. If so, what covenant did he confirm, and when did he perform the abomination of desolation in the temple?

2. "The prince" is unknown; however, other portions of scripture teach us who this "prince" is...the Antichrist...and this is a still future event that will happen in the rebuilt temple which will be located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

 

Sir, 

 

All that is saying is that the walls had changed and the city had grown. The temple mount was then...where it is now. It's hard to dismiss those HUGE foundation stones that Herod put in place under the Temple Mount.

 

 

 

No, just the fulfilment of Jesus Christ's prophecy that not one stone of the temple (that they could see) would be left standing on another; they would be thrown down.

 

I'm thinking that Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of desolate might differ from God's.

 

We have to ask ourselves, "Who is the HE that shall confirm the covenant?" Is it Christ, or is it someone else? If we look at the previous verse, we will see who the "he" is...

 

Dan 9:26-27
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.

 

Messiah has been cut off, and another person is mentioned..."the prince" of the people who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. He (the prince of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary) is the one who will confirm the covenant.

 

The view has been brought forward that "he" is the Lord Jesus Christ. The view has also been brought forth that the "he" was General Titus. However, verse 27 flows out of verse 26, and the last person mentioned in verse 26 is "the prince"; therefore, the "he" of verse 27 is continuing with that person...the prince of the people who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

That leaves us two options...since Jesus Christ wasn't the prince of the Romans.

 

1. "The prince" was General Titus. If so, what covenant did he confirm, and when did he perform the abomination of desolation in the temple?

2. "The prince" is unknown; however, other portions of scripture teach us who this "prince" is...the Antichrist...and this is a still future event that will happen in the rebuilt temple which will be located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

 

The prince was not the subject of the sentence,  his people were,  The Last person who was the subject was Messiah.

 

But in the bible you will find examples of the "he"   referring back some way.  When we look at the whole prophecy it is of the Messiah, so apart from any other explanation, the "he" must refer to Him.

 

It is a very serious thing to apply prophecies regarding the Lord, to the Antichrist.  Very serious. 

[No Nicolaitans]

The prince was not the subject of the sentence,  his people were,  The Last person who was the subject was Messiah.

 

But in the bible you will find examples of the "he"   referring back some way.  When we look at the whole prophecy it is of the Messiah, so apart from any other explanation, the "he" must refer to Him.

 

It is a very serious thing to apply prophecies regarding the Lord, to the Antichrist.  Very serious. 

 

Invicta, what you're implying is...

 

The Lord Jesus Christ, he who is high and lifted up, he who is holy, righteous, and true...the Lord Jesus Christ committed the abomination of desolation.

 

Matt 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

 

It's a very serious thing to apply sin to the Lord Jesus Christ. Very serious.