Comment On Current Debate

[Covenanter]

Any other comments? Is Bro Scott's criticism in that paragraph valid? 

Think about how you understand the millennium, and consider whether the everlasting covenant promises to Israel - are fulfilled in that understanding, rather than the NH&NE.

And how can the 70 weeks prophecy predict events 350+ weeks distant?

 

Edited September 5, 2015 by Covenanter
half line added after - [ I'm away from home and writing with a 'pen.' I knew what I was thinking.]'

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Could someone put this in a simple post as I find this thread to be extremely difficult to follow with the long postings and the way some of them are formatted?

Brother John, 

I have not forgotten your request, nor am I neglecting it.  As the Lord provides the time, I intend to provide an answer to your request.

[Genevanpreacher]

Having a conviction contrary to Bro. Scott is evidently wrong. And he says as much right here -

"Throughout this discussion-debate it has become apparent to me that the primary disagreement between Brother Day and myself is not over Daniel 9:24-27, but is over the method of Bible study itself.  Therefore, with my conclusion to this concluding post of the discussion-debate, I wish to provide a warning unto the members of the audience." 

Warning the audience? How can you warn the audience when you reject sound scriptural teachings such as has been stated many times by Bro Ian?

Yes, you seem to be a very 'intellectual' man of God Bro. Scott, and I am sure many lives have been affected toward the good of God's word and teachings through your ministering to the peoples needs. I will not deny that you seem to know your stuff.

But knowledge, contrary to what the normal fella knows, is what some would and do perceive as 'fake knowledge', or the kind of knowledge that says 'hey, if you want to REALLY know the 'truth', you have to be smart enough or you won't get it. And I have that knowledge!'

I don't understand how you are more qualified of the Lord to know more than some of us. At least that is what you are saying by 'speaking much words'.  (I am sure you will point out that this verse has nothing to do with what I mean it to mean) -

Matthew 6:7 -  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[Invicta]

Bro Ian

Your last post include the following.

 So the covenant history continues - fulfilment under the kingdom of David & Solomon, with occasional revival under later kings until the Babylonian captivity; then the return from Babylon to the promised land, but without the Davidic king. 

When they returned after the captivity Zerubbabel seemed to be the governor.

1 ¶  Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2  Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:

My question is Zerubbabel was in the line of David, so why did they not make him king? 

Sorry, I know this is nothing to do with the thread but it is something I have always wondererd about

 

Edited September 5, 2015 by Invicta
I wrote this a day or two ago but it doesn't seem to have been posted

[Covenanter]

Ian:  So the covenant history continues - fulfilment under the kingdom of David & Solomon, with occasional revival under later kings until the Babylonian captivity; then the return from Babylon to the promised land, but without the Davidic king. 

Bro Ian

Your last post include the following.

When they returned after the captivity Zerubbabel seemed to be the governor.

1 ¶  Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2  Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:

My question is Zerubbabel was in the line of David, so why did they not make him king? 

Sorry, I know this is nothing to do with the thread but it is something I have always wondererd about

 

Yes - Zerubbabel was in the kingly line - Mat. 1:12  1 Chr. 3:13-19

As the return from the exile was ordered by King Cyrus, it seems he would not make Zerubbabel a rival king - see also Neh. 6:5-7 

Jeremiah also prophesied that there would not be a king in the line from Jeconiah - see Jer. 22:24-30 - until, of course, the true King, the Branch, the LORD our righteousness came. Then the tabernacle of David was rebuilt by Jesus ascending to David's throne. Amos 9:11  Acts 15:16 

This is pertinent to the Daniel thread, as the city was to be rebuilt unto the Messiah, not a resumption of the status quo of the kingdom. The genealogies show Jesus to be born into the kingly line, & therefore the son of David, son of Abraham as prophesied.

 

[John81]

Having a conviction contrary to Bro. Scott is evidently wrong. And he says as much right here -

"Throughout this discussion-debate it has become apparent to me that the primary disagreement between Brother Day and myself is not over Daniel 9:24-27, but is over the method of Bible study itself.  Therefore, with my conclusion to this concluding post of the discussion-debate, I wish to provide a warning unto the members of the audience." 

Warning the audience? How can you warn the audience when you reject sound scriptural teachings such as has been stated many times by Bro Ian?

Yes, you seem to be a very 'intellectual' man of God Bro. Scott, and I am sure many lives have been affected toward the good of God's word and teachings through your ministering to the peoples needs. I will not deny that you seem to know your stuff.

But knowledge, contrary to what the normal fella knows, is what some would and do perceive as 'fake knowledge', or the kind of knowledge that says 'hey, if you want to REALLY know the 'truth', you have to be smart enough or you won't get it. And I have that knowledge!'

I don't understand how you are more qualified of the Lord to know more than some of us. At least that is what you are saying by 'speaking much words'.  (I am sure you will point out that this verse has nothing to do with what I mean it to mean) -

Matthew 6:7 -  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Typically in any debate, especially in one of this sort, each side (or sides, in some cases) naturally believe their position to be correct and others wrong. This leads to the obvious conclusion that if one is right and others wrong then ones means of study, interpretation and understanding of Scripture is right and the other wrong.

This view can be held more subliminally, or even understood but in a humble manner, or as some are prone to do in a prideful manner.

We know that the various views of the end times conflict with one another. The method of study and the interpretation of verses and passages differ. Conversion from one to the other is very rare among those who are determined their particular view is correct. The chance some may meet in the middle somewhere is even more rare. So, in the end, after much debate we always end up in the same place. Each side is still convinced they are correct, their study methods and interpretations are correct and therefore all others are incorrect.

Not until we are all with Jesus will we all fully know and be in full agreement on the matter.

While I found much of this thread very difficult to follow, I tried as I could and I appreciate the efforts put forth here and hope we all may proceed in love for one another as family in Christ.

[Alimantado]

Right, and the participants don't have to change their positions for the discussion to be valuable. Those participating might learn a bit more about how similar their position is to another position, that though they disagree with it overall, they disagree with it less than they thought. And then there are all those listening or even chiming in who haven't taken a firm position and may be swayed either way.

[Covenanter]

Could someone put this in a simple post as I find this thread to be extremely difficult to follow with the long postings and the way some of them are formatted?

Begin with the passage:

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.
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.

As I understand this Scripture:

The prophecy is about the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, his saving work & its results for for God's redeemed people;

Generally OT prophecy is best understood by its fulfilment, particularly in the life & ministry of Jesus, his saving work, & the Gospel resulting from the saving work, therefore read the NT to understand the OT;

The timescale - completed in 70 weeks or 490 years - around 35 AD;

69 weeks takes us to the baptism of Jesus, so the 70th week includes Jesus earthly ministry & the early Apostolic ministry - the first half of Acts;

 Old Testament (Old Covenant) vision & prophecy will be sealed up by Messiah's life & saving ministry so that prophecy focuses on Jesus, his saving work & his kingdom, not on Israel's future, apart from the glorious restored covenant relationship detailed in v. 24; 

All the blessings for God's people of v. 24 are accomplished by Messiah's saving work, and are received by repentance & faith and must be appropriated in the present Gospel age of grace;

Messiah's saving work - his death for sinners - ends the examples, shadows & patterns of the Law, so that the temple, and Jerusalem centred worship will cease with the destruction of the temple & city;

OT prophecy includes judgement for those who reject the covenant & particularly for those who reject the Messiah (Deut. 18, quoted by Peter in Acts 3);

The timescale for the perfect realisation of the prophesied covenant blessings of v. 24 is not revealed - the focus is on Jesus & his saving ministry - but Jesus himself in his Olivet prophecy could not reveal the timescale for his coming, only the timescale for the destruction;

The perfect fulfilment of all prophecy & covenant promises for Israelite believers, together with believers from all nations on earth will be accomplished in the NH&NE, after Jesus returns for resurrection & judgement, which is the next & final event of prophecy. 

=============

A gap between 69 & 70, future end times tribulation, millennium, restored kingdom for national Israel, earthly reign of Messiah, etc, are not written in the passage.

==============

As I understand Bro Scott,

He sees OT promises & prophecies specifically relating to the earthly nation of Israel, & as they were not fulfilled before Messiah came, & the nation rejected Messiah & the Apostolic Gospel, & are not being fulfilled now in the present nation of Israel, there must be a future dispensation when all the OT prophecies happen literally. 

That requires a gap in the 70 weeks, re-establishment of Israel as a Jewish nation, rebuilding the temple, & then destroying it all again in the 70th week, after which the surviving Israelites will believe in Jesus Christ who will reign over them as a mortal people, on earth, in person, for 1,000 years. 

The present Gospel age is thus in effect a gap in prophetic revelation between weeks 69 & 70 during which God is not dealing with Israel as a nation, but mainly the Gentiles, & any Jews who do repent & believe in Jesus Christ.

[We don't hear much from the dispensationalists about the dreadful end of their millennium when all hell breaks loose & the wonderful restored earthly kingdom of Israel is burnt up along with the old earth, so that a NH&NE can be established. ] 

===================

I hope that is a fair brief summary of Bro Scott's position.

One final passage:

2 Peter 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

As I understand Bro Scott,

He sees OT promises & prophecies specifically relating to the earthly nation of Israel, & as they were not fulfilled before Messiah came, & the nation rejected Messiah & the Apostolic Gospel, & are not being fulfilled now in the present nation of Israel, there must be a future dispensation when all the OT prophecies happen literally. 

That requires a gap in the 70 weeks, re-establishment of Israel as a Jewish nation, rebuilding the temple, & then destroying it all again in the 70th week, after which the surviving Israelites will believe in Jesus Christ who will reign over them as a mortal people, on earth, in person, for 1,000 years. 

The present Gospel age is thus in effect a gap in prophetic revelation between weeks 69 & 70 during which God is not dealing with Israel as a nation, but mainly the Gentiles, & any Jews who do repent & believe in Jesus Christ.

[We don't hear much from the dispensationalists about the dreadful end of their millennium when all hell breaks loose & the wonderful restored earthly kingdom of Israel is burnt up along with the old earth, so that a NH&NE can be established. ] 

===================

I hope that is a fair brief summary of Bro Scott's position.

Brother Day,

Although I myself would add more details, and although I would not claim that all of these things are taught specifically in and by Daniel 9:24-27, and although a few of the specifics are not exactly correct to my position, the above was indeed a fair "brief summary" of my position -- all except the parenthetical note at the end of the summary.   

Concerning the truth, instruction, and promise of 2 Peter 3:11 -- Amen, and AMEN!

Edited September 6, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

In an above posting from a few weeks ago, Brother John quoted Brother Alan as follows:

Pastor Markle has . . . proved his contention that the 70th week in Daniel 9:24-27 positively points to the 7 Year Tribulation Period . . . .

Alan

 To this quote, Brother John then asked the following question:

Could someone put this in a simple post as I find this thread to be extremely difficult to follow with the long postings and the way some of them are formatted?

Brother John,

The following is my answer.  I pray that it is not found to be too long.

_______________________________________________________________________

The answer to your question is bound up in a series of points concerning Daniel 9:24-27, as follows:

1.  The point of Specific Focus.

In Daniel 9:24 God’s Word specifically indicates that the “seventy weeks” were “determined” by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, that is – upon the children of Israel.  Thus the events of the “seventy weeks” themselves must have their focus and administration upon the children of Israel, not upon any grouping of Gentiles.  Thus also the “seventy weeks” themselves do not concern “the times of the Gentiles” (which is referenced in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25).  In fact, during “the times of the Gentiles” the Lord’s focus is not upon the children of Israel; but during that time the Lord has determined to cause “darkness in part” to be against the children of Israel. (See Romans 11:25)  Yet according to Romans 11:26-27, after “the fulness of the Gentiles” comes in, then the Lord will again set His focus of blessing upon the children of Israel.

2.  The point of Revealed Purpose.

In Daniel 9:24 God’s Word specifically reveals a six-fold purpose for the “seventy weeks” that the Lord God determined to administer “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Thus we understand that the “seventy weeks” will conclude with the fulfillment of these six purposes.  Furthermore, since the “seventy weeks” are “determined” to be specifically administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, thus we understand that these six purposes are to be fulfilled specifically upon and in relation to the children of Israel.  Indeed, we thus understand that at the conclusion of the “seventy weeks,” (1)  “the transgression” of the children of Israel shall be finished, (2) that the “sins” of the children of Israel shall be brought to “an end,” (3) that the “iniquity” of the children of Israel shall be removed, such that they are fully reconciled with the Lord God, (4) that the children of Israel shall be placed in a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness,” (5) that all of the prophecies concerning the children of Israel will be “sealed up” with fulfillment, and (6) that in relation to and for the sake of the children of Israel, “the most Holy,” the Lord Jesus Christ, “the Messiah the Prince,” will be acknowledged and anointed to engage in His kingship ministry upon the earth.  Finally, we understand that all of this is in perfect unity with the Lord God’s promise to establish a new covenant with the children of Israel, as recorded in Jeremiah 3:17-29; 31:31-34; 32:37-40; Ezekiel 36:25-28; 37:21-23; Romans 11:26-27.

3.  The point of Holy Spirit-Arranged “Betweeness.”

Concerning the timing relationship of Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, and Daniel 9:27, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:25 to cover the entire period of the first 69 “weeks” of years (or, 483 years), and thereby to specifically reference to the conclusion of the 69^th “week” of years.  Furthermore, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:27 to begin with a specific reference unto the beginning of the 70^th and final “week” of years, to proceed with a specific reference unto the middle of the 70^th and final “week” of years, and to conclude with a specific reference unto the consummation (conclusion) of the 70^th and final “week” of years (and thus also of the entire “seventy weeks” period).  Finally, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophesied events to be between Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:27.  In addition, we take notice that although human assumption would expect the 70^th “week” of years to follow immediately at the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years, and although Daniel 9:26 does begin with a specific indication that its prophesied events follow after the 62 “weeks” of years that conclude the first 69 “weeks” of years, yet Daniel 9:26 does not specifically reference the 70^th and final “week” of years at all.  Rather, the very beginning of the 70^th and final “week” of years is not specifically referenced until the beginning of Daniel 9:27.

4.  The point of Contextual Flow-of-Thought.

Grammatically, in Daniel 9:26 we find four independent statements, as follows:  “[1] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: [2] and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; [3] and the end thereof shall be with a flood, [4] and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”  Furthermore, in Daniel 9:27 we find four more independent statements, as follows:  “[1] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: [2] and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, [3] and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, [4] and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”  Now, every single one of these independent statements begins with the coordinating conjunction “and” in order to reveal the relationship of that statement with that which precedes it.  For each of the independent statement of Daniel 9:26, it can be demonstrated by the flow of thought that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of each independent statement signals a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.  Also for the latter three independent statements of Daniel 9:27, it can be demonstrated by the flow of thought that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of each of these independent statements signals a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.  So then, what about the first independent statement of Daniel 9:27, the statement with which Daniel 9:27 begins?  Since the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of every other independent statement in Daniel 9:26-27 indicates a sequential relationship to that which preceded it, so in this contextual flow-of-thought we would conclude that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of Daniel 9:27 also indicates a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.

5.  The point of Immediate Context.

In Daniel 9:27 we find the pronoun “he” employed three times, and all of these appears to be a reference unto the same “he.”  So then, who is the contextual antecedent for this pronoun “he”?  Grammatically (agreeing in both gender and number) and contextually, there are two possible antecedents for this pronoun “he.”  The first of these is “the Messiah the Prince.”  The second is “the prince that shall come.”  Three times throughout the context of Daniel 9:24-26 the Messiah is referenced, and each time He is referenced with an exalted title, as follows: (1) “the Most Holy” in verse 24, (2) “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25, and (3) “Messiah” in verse 26.  Considering that such exalted titles are used for Him in each of these prior cases, it seems out of contextual character then to reference Him in verse 27 simply with the pronoun “he” for all three uses.  Furthermore, when the pronoun “he” could have been used for the Messiah in verse 26 without any ambiguity from the context of verse 25 (since the other “he,” “the prince that shall come,” had not even been mentioned yet in the context), still the exalted title “Messiah” was employed.  As such, this seems to emphasize the characteristic of this context to reference the Messiah only with exalted terminology.  On the other hand, by referring to “the prince that shall come” with such a more general and less exalted phrasing, it would fit the character of the context quite well then to reference him in verse 27 with the simple pronoun “he.”  Furthermore, it is a common principle of communication (although not a universal requirement) to arrange the antecedent for a pronoun as the closest possibility (agreeing in gender and number), which “the prince that shall come” would be in the contextual flow of thought from verse 26 unto verse 27.  As such, the grammatical and contextual evidence seems to point unto “the prince that shall come” as the correct antecedent for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27, rather than “the Messiah the Prince.” 

Even so, I myself would contend that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 refers to some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force), who “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm” some specific “covenant” with “many” from among the children of Israel.  Furthermore, I would contend that this “prince” from the Roman kingdom “shall confirm” this specific “covenant” only and specifically for a period of “one week” of years (or, 7 years), even as the modifying prepositional phrase, “for one week,” directly indicates.  Finally, I would contend that this confirming of this specific “covenant” will initiate the beginning of the 70^th and final “week” of years.

6.  The point of Broader Context.

The opening statement of Daniel 9:27 prophecies, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”  The use of the definite article “the” in the phrase “the covenant” indicates that this “covenant” is some definitely specific covenant.  However, no further description is given in Daniel 9:27 concerning this “covenant,” or even in the full context of Daniel 9:24-27, by which to specifically define this “covenant.”  Therefore, we must consider the broader context of the entire chapter of Daniel 9 and of the entire book of Daniel.  In so doing, we find one other reference to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 9 (Daniel 9:4).  Furthermore, we find five other references to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 11 (Daniel 11:22, 28, 30 [twice], 32).  In Daniel 9:4 Daniel indicated that the Lord God was keeping (in the present tense of Daniel’s time) “the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.”  So then, what “the covenant” was the Lord God keeping with His people at that present time?  It would seem that Daniel was referring to the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai during Moses’ time.  This would seem to be supported when we consider the similarity in terminology, as per Moses’ declaration unto the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:12-13.  Furthermore, this would seem to be supported when we consider Daniel’s own reference unto “the law of Moses” in Daniel 9:11-13.  Finally, it also appears that within their individual contexts every one of the five references to “the covenant” or “the holy covenant” in Daniel 11is a reference unto the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.

So then, in what way will the “he” of Daniel 9:27 “confirm” the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel that He had made with them at Mount Sinai?   In order to answer this question, it might be of value to consider the opposite behavior as presented in Daniel 11:30-31.  Therein we learn of a foreign ruler who would “have indignation against the holy covenant,” which he would demonstrate by polluting “the sanctuary of strength” (that is – the temple in Jerusalem) and by taking away “the daily sacrifice” from being engaged.  Even so, if having indignation against “the holy covenant” is to pollute the temple and to take away the sacrificial system from the temple, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that confirming “the covenant” would be to support the temple and the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple.  Even so, I myself would contend that some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm the covenant with many” among the children of Israel for a seven year period (“one week”), such that there shall be an agreement that those “many” among the children of Israel will be permitted to engage in the sacrificial system of the temple for that period of time.

___________________________________________________________________

Again, I pray that this answer will be found helpful and good to the use of edifying.

[Invicta]

In an above posting from a few weeks ago, Brother John quoted Brother Alan as follows:

 To this quote, Brother John then asked the following question:

 

Brother John,

The following is my answer.  I pray that it is not found to be too long.

_______________________________________________________________________

The answer to your question is bound up in a series of points concerning Daniel 9:24-27, as follows:

 

 

1.  The point of Specific Focus.

 

 

In Daniel 9:24 God’s Word specifically indicates that the “seventy weeks” were “determined” by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, that is – upon the children of Israel.  Thus the events of the “seventy weeks” themselves must have their focus and administration upon the children of Israel, not upon any grouping of Gentiles.  Thus also the “seventy weeks” themselves do not concern “the times of the Gentiles” (which is referenced in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25).  In fact, during “the times of the Gentiles” the Lord’s focus is not upon the children of Israel; but during that time the Lord has determined to cause “darkness in part” to be against the children of Israel. (See Romans 11:25)  Yet according to Romans 11:26-27, after “the fulness of the Gentiles” comes in, then the Lord will again set His focus of blessing upon the children of Israel.

 

 

2.  The point of Revealed Purpose.

 

 

In Daniel 9:24 God’s Word specifically reveals a six-fold purpose for the “seventy weeks” that the Lord God determined to administer “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Thus we understand that the “seventy weeks” will conclude with the fulfillment of these six purposes.  Furthermore, since the “seventy weeks” are “determined” to be specifically administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, thus we understand that these six purposes are to be fulfilled specifically upon and in relation to the children of Israel.  Indeed, we thus understand that at the conclusion of the “seventy weeks,” (1)  “the transgression” of the children of Israel shall be finished, (2) that the “sins” of the children of Israel shall be brought to “an end,” (3) that the “iniquity” of the children of Israel shall be removed, such that they are fully reconciled with the Lord God, (4) that the children of Israel shall be placed in a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness,” (5) that all of the prophecies concerning the children of Israel will be “sealed up” with fulfillment, and (6) that in relation to and for the sake of the children of Israel, “the most Holy,” the Lord Jesus Christ, “the Messiah the Prince,” will be acknowledged and anointed to engage in His kingship ministry upon the earth.  Finally, we understand that all of this is in perfect unity with the Lord God’s promise to establish a new covenant with the children of Israel, as recorded in Jeremiah 3:17-29; 31:31-34; 32:37-40; Ezekiel 36:25-28; 37:21-23; Romans 11:26-27.

 

 

3.  The point of Holy Spirit-Arranged “Betweeness.”

 

 

Concerning the timing relationship of Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, and Daniel 9:27, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:25 to cover the entire period of the first 69 “weeks” of years (or, 483 years), and thereby to specifically reference to the conclusion of the 69^th “week” of years.  Furthermore, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:27 to begin with a specific reference unto the beginning of the 70^th and final “week” of years, to proceed with a specific reference unto the middle of the 70^th and final “week” of years, and to conclude with a specific reference unto the consummation (conclusion) of the 70^th and final “week” of years (and thus also of the entire “seventy weeks” period).  Finally, we recognize that God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophesied events to be between Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:27.  In addition, we take notice that although human assumption would expect the 70^th “week” of years to follow immediately at the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years, and although Daniel 9:26 does begin with a specific indication that its prophesied events follow after the 62 “weeks” of years that conclude the first 69 “weeks” of years, yet Daniel 9:26 does not specifically reference the 70^th and final “week” of years at all.  Rather, the very beginning of the 70^th and final “week” of years is not specifically referenced until the beginning of Daniel 9:27.

 

 

4.  The point of Contextual Flow-of-Thought.

 

 

Grammatically, in Daniel 9:26 we find four independent statements, as follows:  “[1] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: [2] and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; [3] and the end thereof shall be with a flood, [4] and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”  Furthermore, in Daniel 9:27 we find four more independent statements, as follows:  “[1] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: [2] and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, [3] and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, [4] and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”  Now, every single one of these independent statements begins with the coordinating conjunction “and” in order to reveal the relationship of that statement with that which precedes it.  For each of the independent statement of Daniel 9:26, it can be demonstrated by the flow of thought that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of each independent statement signals a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.  Also for the latter three independent statements of Daniel 9:27, it can be demonstrated by the flow of thought that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of each of these independent statements signals a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.  So then, what about the first independent statement of Daniel 9:27, the statement with which Daniel 9:27 begins?  Since the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of every other independent statement in Daniel 9:26-27 indicates a sequential relationship to that which preceded it, so in this contextual flow-of-thought we would conclude that the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of Daniel 9:27 also indicates a sequential relationship to that which preceded it.

 

 

5.  The point of Immediate Context.

 

 

In Daniel 9:27 we find the pronoun “he” employed three times, and all of these appears to be a reference unto the same “he.”  So then, who is the contextual antecedent for this pronoun “he”?  Grammatically (agreeing in both gender and number) and contextually, there are two possible antecedents for this pronoun “he.”  The first of these is “the Messiah the Prince.”  The second is “the prince that shall come.”  Three times throughout the context of Daniel 9:24-26 the Messiah is referenced, and each time He is referenced with an exalted title, as follows: (1) “the Most Holy” in verse 24, (2) “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25, and (3) “Messiah” in verse 26.  Considering that such exalted titles are used for Him in each of these prior cases, it seems out of contextual character then to reference Him in verse 27 simply with the pronoun “he” for all three uses.  Furthermore, when the pronoun “he” could have been used for the Messiah in verse 26 without any ambiguity from the context of verse 25 (since the other “he,” “the prince that shall come,” had not even been mentioned yet in the context), still the exalted title “Messiah” was employed.  As such, this seems to emphasize the characteristic of this context to reference the Messiah only with exalted terminology.  On the other hand, by referring to “the prince that shall come” with such a more general and less exalted phrasing, it would fit the character of the context quite well then to reference him in verse 27 with the simple pronoun “he.”  Furthermore, it is a common principle of communication (although not a universal requirement) to arrange the antecedent for a pronoun as the closest possibility (agreeing in gender and number), which “the prince that shall come” would be in the contextual flow of thought from verse 26 unto verse 27.  As such, the grammatical and contextual evidence seems to point unto “the prince that shall come” as the correct antecedent for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27, rather than “the Messiah the Prince.” 

 

 

Even so, I myself would contend that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 refers to some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force), who “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm” some specific “covenant” with “many” from among the children of Israel.  Furthermore, I would contend that this “prince” from the Roman kingdom “shall confirm” this specific “covenant” only and specifically for a period of “one week” of years (or, 7 years), even as the modifying prepositional phrase, “for one week,” directly indicates.  Finally, I would contend that this confirming of this specific “covenant” will initiate the beginning of the 70^th and final “week” of years.

 

 

6.  The point of Broader Context.

 

 

The opening statement of Daniel 9:27 prophecies, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”  The use of the definite article “the” in the phrase “the covenant” indicates that this “covenant” is some definitely specific covenant.  However, no further description is given in Daniel 9:27 concerning this “covenant,” or even in the full context of Daniel 9:24-27, by which to specifically define this “covenant.”  Therefore, we must consider the broader context of the entire chapter of Daniel 9 and of the entire book of Daniel.  In so doing, we find one other reference to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 9 (Daniel 9:4).  Furthermore, we find five other references to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 11 (Daniel 11:22, 28, 30 [twice], 32).  In Daniel 9:4 Daniel indicated that the Lord God was keeping (in the present tense of Daniel’s time) “the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.”  So then, what “the covenant” was the Lord God keeping with His people at that present time?  It would seem that Daniel was referring to the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai during Moses’ time.  This would seem to be supported when we consider the similarity in terminology, as per Moses’ declaration unto the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:12-13.  Furthermore, this would seem to be supported when we consider Daniel’s own reference unto “the law of Moses” in Daniel 9:11-13.  Finally, it also appears that within their individual contexts every one of the five references to “the covenant” or “the holy covenant” in Daniel 11is a reference unto the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.

 

 

So then, in what way will the “he” of Daniel 9:27 “confirm” the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel that He had made with them at Mount Sinai?   In order to answer this question, it might be of value to consider the opposite behavior as presented in Daniel 11:30-31.  Therein we learn of a foreign ruler who would “have indignation against the holy covenant,” which he would demonstrate by polluting “the sanctuary of strength” (that is – the temple in Jerusalem) and by taking away “the daily sacrifice” from being engaged.  Even so, if having indignation against “the holy covenant” is to pollute the temple and to take away the sacrificial system from the temple, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that confirming “the covenant” would be to support the temple and the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple.  Even so, I myself would contend that some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm the covenant with many” among the children of Israel for a seven year period (“one week”), such that there shall be an agreement that those “many” among the children of Israel will be permitted to engage in the sacrificial system of the temple for that period of time.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________

Again, I pray that this answer will be found helpful and good to the use of edifying.

I am sorry to have to say this Bro Scott, but that seems to me to be a long winded way to say that God can't count.

I think we have agreed that the 69 weeks ended at the baptism of Jesus. Although some say at the entry into Jerusalem, others say at the birth of Jesus, but I think we can ignore the last one.  Your teaching ignores the ministry of Jesus which was to the Jews.  His personal ministry was till the crucifiction 3½ years of the 70th week.  After the resurrection it continued through the apostles till the gospel was opened up to the gentiles via Cornelius and his family. 

 

[John81]

Covenanter and Pastor Markle,

I appreciate both of you setting forth your positions on this in an easier to read and study manner. That has been very helpful. Thank you!

[Alan]

Covenanter and Pastor Markle,

Thank you for the debate. All of us appreciate the intense study and exegsis of Daniel 9:24-27, the Covenants mentioned, prophesies related to Daniel 9:24-27, and other related scripture references.  The amount of study, preperation, writing of your findings, that both of you accomplished was tremendous and noteworthy for all of us. I am sure that the debate has caused all of us to have a deeper appreciation of not only Daniel 9:24-27 but other passages also.

Matt,

Thank you for allowing the debate, comments on the debate,  and keeping all of the above in order. Also, a noteworthy task.

Alan

 

[Covenanter]

 

Brother Scott:

As I try to get the gist of your analysis, I am still puzzled as to why you cannot simply accept that the prophecy relates to the saving work of the Lord Jesus, as detailed in v. 24. 

You do acknowledge that what you teach is not "taught specifically in and by Daniel 9:24-27," : 

"Although I myself would add more details, and although I would not claim that all of these things are taught specifically in and by Daniel 9:24-27, and although a few of the specifics are not exactly correct to my position, the above was indeed a fair "brief summary" of my position -- all except the parenthetical note at the end of the summary."

 I do not think it would harm your end times tribulation/second coming/millennium teaching, which presumably is what is not specifically taught in the passage, simply to accept  the plain words of Scripture which says that Messiah will finish his saving work for Israel in 70 weeks. And accept the Apostolic preaching as the proclamation to Israel of the finished work of Christ, the confirmation of the covenant. 

Your own summary has little to say about the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, except to assert that he will be acknowledged as King by Israel after the tribulation, & during the millennium. Most of your references to Messiah are to prove the Messiah has nothing to do with the "he" who confirms the covenant. 

Thus, apart from Messiah being cut off, & the AD 70 destruction, the prophecy has nothing to say to us, Christian believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. The prophecy is not relevant to the church in this Gospel age of grace. That when Jesus reassured his disciples concerning the OT Scriptures as recorded in Luke 24, he would not have included Dan. 9.

And when Peter preached that his Jewish hearers were children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers  he was not teaching them that Jesus by his shed blood of the new covenant was confirming the covenant relationship of God with his people. And that when he preached: 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 he did not have in mind Gabriel's inspired prophecy:  to make reconciliation for iniquity.  

And when he wrote his letters, he was excluding Daniel. 9 from: Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

If prophecy & the covenant are all about the nation of Israel in some future dispensation, then what benefit is there for us in studying it? And why do the NT writers apply prophecy to their readers? No. Prophecy is primarily about the Lord Jesus Christ & his saving work applied by the Gospel to believers in Jesus in the present age of grace. Believers in Jesus are grafted into believing Israel, & enjoy all the prophesied blessings, including Dan. 9:24 spiritually in life & fully in the NH&NE, with eternal life beginning at conversion when we enter that saving new covenant.relationship in Jesus' blood.   

 Please, brother, stop trying to win the debate by grammatical argument - just read the Scriptures & accept what they say. 

 

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Bro Scott

I'm not sure that follows.  I believe that the covenant mentioned is God's covenant, confirmed by Christ to the many, the circumcised. Romans 15:8  Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Brother David,

First, the phrase "the covenant" in Daniel 9:27 grammatically indicates at least two things -- (1) The definite article "the" indicates that "the covenant" is a definitely specific covenant; (2) the fact that the word "covenant" is singular, not plural, indicates that "the covenant" is a singular covenant.  Thus the phrase "the covenant" grammatically moves us to seek for a specific, singular covenant in relation to the context of Daniel 9:27.  So then, what specific, singular covenant was Daniel referencing in Daniel 9:4?  Also, what specific, singular covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:22?  Also, what specific, singular holy covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:28?  Also, what specific, singular holy covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:30?  Also, what specific, singular covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:32?  I would dare to say, even as you have said previously, that Daniel was well aware of the specific, singular covenant about which the angel Gabriel was speaking in Daniel 9:27, especially in consideration of Daniel's own usage of that phrase at the beginning of his prayer in Daniel 9:4.

Second, concerning your reference to Romans 15:8 -- I am aware that you view the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as being "the Messiah the Prince," the Lord Jesus Christ.  I believe that you are aware that I do not agree with this viewpoint concerning the antecedent and definition for the "he" of Daniel 9:27.  However, for the sake of the following question, I shall accept your viewpoint for your position on the matter.  So then, do you believe that the phrase "the covenant" of Daniel 9:27 is equivalent to the phrase "the promises made unto the fathers" of Romans 15:8?  If so, which "fathers" are being referenced in Romans 15:8?  Do you believe that this is a reference unto God's covenant with the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?  Or, do you believe that this is a reference unto God's covenant with the exodus fathers, as created at Mount Sinai?

 

I have always said, well nearly always, that the 'he' of verse is not the prince who will come. I have said this cannot be as the prince is not the subject of that verse.  I said 'nearly always' as I originally just accepted what I was taught in the Brethren, but later came to study myself an not automatically accept was I was taught. 

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.

I have emphasized the subjects of those verses All the occurrences of "he" must refer back to Messiah.  Your grammar should tell you that.

(emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Third, your above comments appear to be based upon a perception that in some way the antecedent of a pronoun is required to be the subject of a verb.  Yet there is no English grammar rule whatsoever at all that requires the antecedent of any pronoun to be the subject of a verb.  On the other hand, it is an English grammar rule that the antecedent of a pronoun is to agree in gender and number with the pronoun.  Furthermore, it is a generally common practice (although not an established or absolute rule) that the antecedent of a pronoun is the closest possible (agreeing in gender and number) noun to the pronoun.

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.

I have emphasized the subjects of those verses

Finally, if it was your intention to emphasize every subject of every verb in those sentences, then your presentation should have been as follows:

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.

Herein you will notice that I have added more subjects of verbs than you presented.  Herein also you will notice that I removed the first phrase that you emphasized, that is -- "the Messiah the Prince."  The reason that I removed this phrase is because it does not serve as the subject of a verb, but as the object of the preposition "unto" in the prepositional phrase "unto the Messiah the Prince."

Edited September 7, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle