Comment On Current Debate

[Covenanter]

Ah, yes, your latest posting in the discussion-debate thread.  I had already considered your presentation in that posting, and it is one of the very reasons that I stated what I did above -- that "maybe I am simply dense, for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage [Acts 3:24-26]."  However, at your above challenge, I consulted and considered that posting yet again.  The relevant portion of that posting seems to be the following:

It appears from the opening lines of this presentation that you believe that Acts 3:24-27 reveals the fulfillment of the phrase in Daniel 9:27 -- "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."  Even so, your connection between this statement of Daniel 9:27 and the declaration of Acts 3:24-27 appears to be that they both employ the phrase, "the covenant."  However, as I have considered again your presentation on Acts 3:24-27 above, I still am unable to find any clear and precise answers to the questions that I posed above (except maybe for my question #5).  Indeed, since your connection between Daniel 9:27 and Acts 3:24-27 appears to be the mutual use of the phrase, "the covenant," a clear and precise answer to my question #4 above is especially important for me to engage the matter (that is -- "4. Which specific 'the covenant' do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:35?").  In fact, this raises yet another confusion for me.  Again maybe I am dense; but throughout all of your postings both in the discussion-debate thread and in external threads, I am still unable to determine exactly which specific "the covenant" you believe is being referenced in Daniel 9:27.  Brother, it might be of help to me if you would more directly and precisely answer the specific questions that I have posed concerning this matter --

1.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

2.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

3.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?

5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?

In addition, 6.  What specific "the covenant" do you believe that Daniel 9:27 is referencing?

Bro Scott, You will find it helpful in your understanding of my understanding to read my sermon in the series of postings in the "Everlasting Covenants" thread:  http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23514-everlasting-covenants/?do=findComment&comment=411068 

Basically we can think of God & Abraham's seed (Israel) being in a covenant relationship through Abraham's Seed, Christ. That relationship is frequently expressed in the form: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." We see that e.g. in 2 Cor. 6 where Paul quotes Lev. 26 as applying to the Corinthians & of course to all believers. 

Ultimately the perfect fulfilment of every covenant expression will be realised for all the redeemed in the NH&NE wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21. 

Q1: No. Many prophecies applied close to their time, & were fulfilled e.g. by David becoming king, by the Babylonian captivity, the return from captivity, Elijah's drought, & many others. 

Q.2 No. It is clear that many of his prophecies are concerned with a succession of kingdoms & empires, & warfare & persecutions involving Israel.

Q3. Basically "Yes." Dan. 9:24 is a prophecy of Jesus' saving work finished at Calvary, by his death, resurrection & ascension, his shed New Covenant blood, and the full forgiveness of the great commission, the eternally secure Covenant relationship of Christ with his redeemed people. 

All the clauses of 9:24 were indeed fulfilled at Calvary, so that all believers are, in God's sight, in Christ, in that wonderful state as prophesied. There is, of course, a working out in time as the Gospel is preached & sinners saved, & there is the ultimate perfect fulfilment in the NH&NE.

The consequences of rejection of the Messiah were included in Gabriel's prophecy. "These days" run up to the prophesied destruction. (AD 70) Thereafter Jesus return for resurrection & judgement is the next item on the prophetic agenda, already prophesied but not yet fulfilled. 

Q4. The basic Covenant relationship of God with his people - the IF clause (e.g. Exo. 19:5  Lev. 26:3,14,15), requiring Israel's obedience being replaced by Jesus' perfect obedience. Jesus was born under the old covenant, fulfilled every requirement to perfection, yet suffered the penalty for disobedience on the cross. 

No need to study every detail of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, nor to propose a future millennial fulfilment. We have a New Covenant relationship now, secured by Jesus, our covenant surety & the promise of the eternal blessed relationship in glory, in the NH&NE.

Jesus thus confirmed the covenant. No need to ask for a specific covenant - it's the whole relationship of God with his people.  

Q5. Daniel in his prayer confessed to a wholesale breach of covenant by the people - trespass, sin, rebellion, disobedience, transgression, etc, deserving the Divine curse, under the Old Covenant. All the covenant promises that called for obedience were utterly flouted. Yet Daniel prays for mercy & forgiveness - and receives the promise.

Q6. It is superfluous to ask which covenant? All are broken by Israel, & all are secured by Christ, & all will find their perfection in the NH&NE.

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Agreed. And there's also a difference between clicking "like this" on someone's post and clicking "like this" on every other post they write.

Yes Al. (And I was referring to you earlier.)

I have liked many of Ian posts. 

I am limited in my day to very little time here and I choose to read posts from reliable friends first and others last. Ian has been very reliable in doctrine that lines up with mine. Yours doesn't. So I spend my time wisely focusing on fellow believers and not general believers. If you can check my likes, you will notice I have liked many other posts from other people than Ian. You may have to look back in time a bit, but over the year and a half or so that I have been here I have liked many posts from everybody. Even you. I disagree with Scott on almost everything he posts, and I am sure he knows that, but what else can you do when some men like Scott teach 'doctrines' that were invented to make 'traditions' that men of God could rely on to keep the people 'on key' and in agreement with the 'leading' teachers of the word of God at large. I was living in that 'church' and the Lord started teaching me through his word only, and here I am. A nonconformist Baptist. I love the freedom to believe what God has showed me, without being forced into a box made by men. My walk with the Lord doesn't spin around on what you or anybody else thinks. My walk with the Lord relies only upon what the Lord shows me in his word. His word is the only reliable thing that matters. He can be trusted to teach me the way to believe about every doctrine and to know truth from error. And I love that.

[Invicta]

Alimantado,

Thank you very much for bringing out the truth of the matter. GP and Invicta are following Covenanter on a regular basis: they are a trio and stick together on most, not all, issues. Anybody that helps expose the error of their beliefs, with the truth, are in some way mocked.  I do have grace left in me to turn the other cheek and take everything with a grain of salt.

Again, thank you very much as I do sincerely appreciate your poast.

Alan

I disagree with Covenanter and his preterism as he knows. I like his posts when he makes a valid point as I do with others I disagree with if I think they make a valid point.  

[Alimantado]

Yes Al. (And I was referring to you earlier.)

I have liked many of Ian posts. 

I am limited in my day to very little time here and I choose to read posts from reliable friends first and others last. Ian has been very reliable in doctrine that lines up with mine. Yours doesn't. So I spend my time wisely focusing on fellow believers and not general believers. If you can check my likes, you will notice I have liked many other posts from other people than Ian. You may have to look back in time a bit, but over the year and a half or so that I have been here I have liked many posts from everybody. Even you. I disagree with Scott on almost everything he posts, and I am sure he knows that, but what else can you do when some men like Scott teach 'doctrines' that were invented to make 'traditions' that men of God could rely on to keep the people 'on key' and in agreement with the 'leading' teachers of the word of God at large. I was living in that 'church' and the Lord started teaching me through his word only, and here I am. A nonconformist Baptist. I love the freedom to believe what God has showed me, without being forced into a box made by men. My walk with the Lord doesn't spin around on what you or anybody else thinks. My walk with the Lord relies only upon what the Lord shows me in his word. His word is the only reliable thing that matters. He can be trusted to teach me the way to believe about every doctrine and to know truth from error. And I love that.

You don't need to defend your liking Covenantor's posts to me, GP. I think people certainly should 'Amen' word by others that they agree with. I know I do it. The person who is attacking such a practice is not me but you. You accuse Alan of "Brother Scott worship" because he often comes out vocally in support of Pastor Markle's posts. What I'm saying is, if we take the lens you apply to Alan and direct it back at yourself, we can just as easily accuse you of 'Covenanter Worship' because of your habit of following Cov around and liking all his posts.

Here are your words again:

"I wish someone could clean up all the pure maple syrup coming out of Alan's 'brother scott worship' that he keeps installing in every discussion on OB where Bro. Scott opens his keyboard and posts, usually some long drawn out post that puts me to sleep before he gets to the point."

[Alan]

Brethren,

Since this thread was started on April 28th. there have been 289 posts. I checked all 12 pages and I noticed that I only commented positively 6 times to Pastor Markle. The above accusations are blatantly false and are to designed to discredit both me and Pastor Markle and the scriptual interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. If you check the posts in the thread you will notice the complete agreement with Covenanter and GR almost every instance. When one attacks me verbally the other follows suit. The amount of their posts is tremendous and my posts have been very, very few.

So, the verbal attacks on me have been non-truths designed to mis-lead, and dis-credit my posts.

In all of the 6 times I posted I gave exact scriptural reasons why I agreed with Pastor Markle and disagreed with Covenanter. All 6 times I gave good scriptual reasons why I disagreed and to this date none of the six posts have been adequatley refuted, or, even answered. All of the six posts were answered by verbal slander and unfavorable insinuations. As I stated before, the reason why GP and Coveanter are verbally attacking me is due to the scriptual agreement between Pastor Markle and myself.

In my estimation, my verbal attackers are trying to cause a divison among brethren who agree with one another in violation of Proverbs 6:16-19, "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." verse 16 and 19

Think about it.

Alan

 

Edited August 20, 2015 by Alan
grammer addition

[Genevanpreacher]

Alan, I was referring to any post Bro. Scott was commentating in, not just this one. There have been plenty of times.

As for this subject... I will cease any more put downs to you and your gushiness, and your stating I cause division between brethren, of which the same could be stated about you and Scott against me and Ian. And just for clarification, I never once tried to cause division, and it is obvious in my posts. So please don't blame me for any type of clash between you and anyone else.

So I give.

Be gushy.

I will still 'like' Ians posts, and we will all live happily ever after.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother Day,

I wish herein to express a thank you, to express an agreement, to express a disagreement, to ask a further question, to express greater Biblical precision, and to express a form of reproof. 

Bro Scott, You will find it helpful in your understanding of my understanding to read my sermon in the series of postings in the "Everlasting Covenants" thread:  http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23514-everlasting-covenants/?do=findComment&comment=411068 

Indeed, I had already read your sermon before my earlier posting.  Concerning the thank you -- I wish to thank you for how swiftly and clearly you delivered your answer to my above questions.

 

Q1: No. Many prophecies applied close to their time, & were fulfilled e.g. by David becoming king, by the Babylonian captivity, the return from captivity, Elijah's drought, & many others. 

Q.2 No. It is clear that many of his prophecies are concerned with a succession of kingdoms & empires, & warfare & persecutions involving Israel.

Concerning the expression of agreement -- With these two answers I would be in full agreement.  I would only add that some of those Old Testament prophetic utterances also speak concerning events that would occur after the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25, such as those prophetic utterances concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's second coming, such as those prophetic utterances concerning the final resurrection, etc.

Q3. Basically "Yes." Dan. 9:24 is a prophecy of Jesus' saving work finished at Calvary, by his death, resurrection & ascension, his shed New Covenant blood, and the full forgiveness of the great commission, the eternally secure Covenant relationship of Christ with his redeemed people. 

All the clauses of 9:24 were indeed fulfilled at Calvary, so that all believers are, in God's sight, in Christ, in that wonderful state as prophesied. There is, of course, a working out in time as the Gospel is preached & sinners saved, & there is the ultimate perfect fulfilment in the NH&NE.

The consequences of rejection of the Messiah were included in Gabriel's prophecy. "These days" run up to the prophesied destruction. (AD 70) Thereafter Jesus return for resurrection & judgement is the next item on the prophetic agenda, already prophesied but not yet fulfilled. 

Concerning the expression of disagreement -- I cannot agree that every single prophetic utterance in Daniel 9:24-27 was about the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25.  Daniel 9:25 speaks prophetically concerning the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and concerning troublous times of that rebuilding.  These things actually were fulfilled hundreds of years before the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25.  Even so, not every prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was to be fulfilled in those days.  Now, if it is possible that some of the prophetic utterances in the passage concerned matters that were to be fulfilled hundreds of years before the "these days" about which Peter spoke, then it is also possible that some of the prophetic utterances in the passage might concern matters that were to be fulfilled hundreds of years after the "these days" about which Peter spoke.  As such, Peter's declaration in Acts 3:25 is no precise evidence at all that all of Daniel 9:24-27 was being fulfilled at that time in those days.

Q4. The basic Covenant relationship of God with his people - the IF clause (e.g. Exo. 19:5  Lev. 26:3,14,15), requiring Israel's obedience being replaced by Jesus' perfect obedience. Jesus was born under the old covenant, fulfilled every requirement to perfection, yet suffered the penalty for disobedience on the cross. 

No need to study every detail of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, nor to propose a future millennial fulfilment. We have a New Covenant relationship now, secured by Jesus, our covenant surety & the promise of the eternal blessed relationship in glory, in the NH&NE.

Jesus thus confirmed the covenant. No need to ask for a specific covenant - it's the whole relationship of God with his people.  

Concerning my further question -- It appears from the above answer and explanation that you believe that all of the individual covenants that God made along with all of their precise, individual details (such as with Abraham, with the children of Israel at Sinai, with David, and in His promise of a new covenant with the children of Israel) are really just parts and pieces of a single over-arching covenant (which you appear to entitle, "The Covenant Relationship of God with His People").  Am I correct in this understanding concerning your position concerning the covenants?

Furthermore, it appears from your above statement, "No need to study every detail of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, nor to propose a future millennial fulfilment. We have a New Covenant relationship now . . . .," that you believe that the precise, individual details of God's promises concerning Israel's restoration are no longer relevant because they have been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ.  Am I correct in this understanding concerning your position? 

Q5. Daniel in his prayer confessed to a wholesale breach of covenant by the people - trespass, sin, rebellion, disobedience, transgression, etc, deserving the Divine curse, under the Old Covenant. All the covenant promises that called for obedience were utterly flouted. Yet Daniel prays for mercy & forgiveness - and receives the promise.

Concerning the expression of greater Biblical precision -- Precisely that for which Daniel prayed in His prayer of confession and supplication was, "O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain . . .," and, "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.  O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name . . .," and, "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name." (See Daniel 9:16-19)  Indeed, precisely that for which Daniel prayed was the Lord's forgiveness upon the children of Israel such that He might turn away His anger and fury from the city of Jerusalem and might cause His face of favor to shine upon the temple in Jerusalem.  In fact, Daniel himself reported in Daniel 9:20 that for which he was praying, saying, "And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God."  Herein Daniel himself indicated that he was confessing the sin of his people Israel, but that he was praying for the holy mountain of God, that is -- not so much for the people, but for the city of Jerusalem and for the temple in Jerusalem.

Contextually, that which motivated Daniel's prayer for these things was His reading of Jeremiah's prophecies concerning the Lord's promise that He would limit the captivity in Babylon unto seventy years. (See Daniel 9:2)  This may be found in Jeremiah 25:11-12 -- "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.  And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations."  Furthermore, this may be found in Jeremiah 29:10-14 -- "For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.  And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.  And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive."

Q6. It is superfluous to ask which covenant? All are broken by Israel, & all are secured by Christ, & all will find their perfection in the NH&NE.

Concerning the form of reproof -- Earlier in this very thread, you yourself (along with Brother "Genevanpreacher" and Brother "Invicta") engaged in significant reproof against me for employing the phrase, "some covenant," in an explanation concerning Daniel 9:27, rather than "the covenant."  With that significant reproof, it was strongly argued that the definite article "the" indicates a specific, singular covenant (with which I fully agree).  However, now you declare that "it is superfluous" for us to discern what that specific, singular covenant is.  So then, the definite article "the" was not superfluous at all, but quite significant when it came to reproving me.  However, now the definite article "the" is not really that significant, but is actually superfluous when it comes to seeking for your position to be precise on which specific, singular covenant the definite article "the" is intended to specify.  This seems like a contradiction and a double standard.

[Invicta]

 

Concerning the form of reproof -- Earlier in this very thread, you yourself (along with Brother "Genevanpreacher" and Brother "Invicta") engaged in significant reproof against me for employing the phrase, "some covenant," in an explanation concerning Daniel 9:27, rather than "the covenant."  With that significant reproof, it was strongly argued that the definite article "the" indicates a specific, singular covenant (with which I fully agree).  However, now you declare that "it is superfluous" for us to discern what that specific, singular covenant is.  So then, the definite article "the" was not superfluous at all, but quite significant when it came to reproving me.  However, now the definite article "the" is not really that significant, but is actually superfluous when it comes to seeking for your position to be precise on which specific, singular covenant the definite article "the" is intended to specify.  This seems like a contradiction and a double standard.

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:

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.

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2015 by Invicta

[Genevanpreacher]

He ain't gonna like that Invicta. 

[Covenanter]

Brother Day,

I wish herein to express a thank you, to express an agreement, to express a disagreement, to ask a further question, to express greater Biblical precision, and to express a form of reproof. 

 

Indeed, I had already read your sermon before my earlier posting.  Concerning the thank you -- I wish to thank you for how swiftly and clearly you delivered your answer to my above questions.

Q1: No. Many prophecies applied close to their time, & were fulfilled e.g. by David becoming king, by the Babylonian captivity, the return from captivity, Elijah's drought, & many others. 

Q.2 No. It is clear that many of his prophecies are concerned with a succession of kingdoms & empires, & warfare & persecutions involving Israel.

Concerning the expression of agreement -- With these two answers I would be in full agreement.  I would only add that some of those Old Testament prophetic utterances also speak concerning events that would occur after the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25, such as those prophetic utterances concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's second coming, such as those prophetic utterances concerning the final resurrection, etc.

I won't argue with that.

Concerning the expression of disagreement -- I cannot agree that every single prophetic utterance in Daniel 9:24-27 was about the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25.  Daniel 9:25 speaks prophetically concerning the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and concerning troublous times of that rebuilding.  These things actually were fulfilled hundreds of years before the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25.  Even so, not every prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was to be fulfilled in those days.  

Again I won't argue with that, except to observe that the preceding events during the 69 weeks were leading up to "these days."   

  Now, if it is possible that some of the prophetic utterances in the passage concerned matters that were to be fulfilled hundreds of years before the "these days" about which Peter spoke, then it is also possible that some of the prophetic utterances in the passage might concern matters that were to be fulfilled hundreds of years after the "these days" about which Peter spoke.  As such, Peter's declaration in Acts 3:25 is no precise evidence at all that all of Daniel 9:24-27 was being fulfilled at that time in those days.

The preceding events during the 69 weeks were leading up to "these days" of the 70th week & the ultimate destruction, which Moses (Deut. 18) & Peter relate to the consequences of rejection of Messiah. We know the the consequences did happen to "this generation" but there is not a prophecy in Dan. 9:24-27 regarding hundreds of years after the 70 weeks.    

 

Concerning my further question -- It appears from the above answer and explanation that you believe that all of the individual covenants that God made along with all of their precise, individual details (such as with Abraham, with the children of Israel at Sinai, with David, and in His promise of a new covenant with the children of Israel) are really just parts and pieces of a single over-arching covenant (which you appear to entitle, "The Covenant Relationship of God with His People").  Am I correct in this understanding concerning your position concerning the covenants?

That is a correct understanding. That "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." relationship is a fully comprehensive expression of the Covenant relationship of God with his people. We don't need the word "covenant" to see the covenant promises. God's every promise is a covenant promise. I understand "the covenant" to be the covenant relationship of God with his people. The people of Israel had broken the covenant relationship, but God would mend/confirm it by Messiah being cut off, not for himself, by his death in the midst of the week, at Calvary. "The covenant" is fully meaningful as an expression of the relationship, hopelessly broken, but to be gloriously confirmed.    

Furthermore, it appears from your above statement, "No need to study every detail of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, nor to propose a future millennial fulfilment. We have a New Covenant relationship now . . . .," that you believe that the precise, individual details of God's promises concerning Israel's restoration are no longer relevant because they have been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ.  Am I correct in this understanding concerning your position? 

 

How will the covenant promises to Abraham & God's people Israel be fulfilled? Or how WERE they fulfilled?

Joshua declared them fulfilled. Joshua was able to say: ¹⁴ And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Joshua 23:14

God had kept his covenant promises to Israel, but Israel failed (remember the IF) so that the other clause in the covenant applied: Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you. ¹⁶ When ye have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.   

 

 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. So the 69 weeks progresses, & Messiah comes to his Father's house & finds it in spiritual ruins: John 2 & Luke 19:⁴⁵ And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; ⁴⁶ saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. 

 

Did Messiah offer the promised possession of the land to the people if they acknowledged his Messiahship? No. He refused them in John 6, & did not call them to arms when he rode into Jerusalem in fulfilment of Zech. 9. He implied a spiritual, internal kingdom: ²⁰ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: ²¹ neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17.   

 

One of the great IFs is,  "what would have happened had the Jews recognised Jesus as Messiah?" Prophecy would not have been fulfilled regarding his rejection & crucifixion, so no salvation. Prophecy WAS fulfilled at Calvary, by that rejection. That did not end the covenant relationship but was the grounds for its perfect fulfilment. None of the covenant promises would have any basis for realisation, for the obedience IF clause would have continued to spoil the relationship.

 

The many covenant promises, all outflowing from the all-pervading covenant relationship "I will be your God, you will be my people" can only be fulfilled in a perfect environment, as we see in the NH&NE in Rev. 21. There there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 
⁵ And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.

Whatever our views on the millennium, that perfect state comes AFTER. The final state is perfect harmony between heaven & earth - renewed. That's the promise Peter was looking towards. His teaching on the millennium was an indefinite period before the Lord returned for resurrection & judgement. 2 Peter 3.     

 

Concerning the expression of greater Biblical precision -- Precisely that for which Daniel prayed in His prayer of confession and supplication was, "O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain . . .," and, "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.  O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name . . .," and, "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name." (See Daniel 9:16-19)  Indeed, precisely that for which Daniel prayed was the Lord's forgiveness upon the children of Israel such that He might turn away His anger and fury from the city of Jerusalem and might cause His face of favor to shine upon the temple in Jerusalem.  In fact, Daniel himself reported in Daniel 9:20 that for which he was praying, saying, "And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God."  Herein Daniel himself indicated that he was confessing the sin of his people Israel, but that he was praying for the holy mountain of God, that is -- not so much for the people, but for the city of Jerusalem and for the temple in Jerusalem.

Contextually, that which motivated Daniel's prayer for these things was His reading of Jeremiah's prophecies concerning the Lord's promise that He would limit the captivity in Babylon unto seventy years. (See Daniel 9:2)  This may be found in Jeremiah 25:11-12 -- "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.  And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations."  Furthermore, this may be found in Jeremiah 29:10-14 -- "For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.  And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.  And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive."

God's revelation is progressive - God's purposes for redemption by his Son are slowly revealed, with different aspects being revealed over time, often by examples, shadows & patterns - types. His Sonship, Kingship, Priesthood, sacrifice, Godhood, etc we can read in Scripture in the light of Jesus' birth, life, perfection, ministry, healings, suffering, death & resurrection, ascension, etc.

Neither Jeremiah, nor Daniel (nor any of the prophets) fully understood what they were prophesying. See 1 Peter 1. So their prayers were affected by their understanding of what God had revealed. In particular, God prophesied the wonderful promised land of the NH&NE in terms of an idyllic land on earth. Hebrews 11 tells us that Abraham understood the promises as referring to a better country, that is, an heavenly rather than the land where he was living, as far as he could see, even though the promises referred to the land.  

Concerning the form of reproof -- Earlier in this very thread, you yourself (along with Brother "Genevanpreacher" and Brother "Invicta") engaged in significant reproof against me for employing the phrase, "some covenant," in an explanation concerning Daniel 9:27, rather than "the covenant."  With that significant reproof, it was strongly argued that the definite article "the" indicates a specific, singular covenant (with which I fully agree).  However, now you declare that "it is superfluous" for us to discern what that specific, singular covenant is.  So then, the definite article "the" was not superfluous at all, but quite significant when it came to reproving me.  However, now the definite article "the" is not really that significant, but is actually superfluous when it comes to seeking for your position to be precise on which specific, singular covenant the definite article "the" is intended to specify.  This seems like a contradiction and a double standard.

We are thinking very differently. I have (I hope) shown that "the covenant" is the covenant relationship of God with his people. I see all THE trees of the forest, while you ask, "which tree is THE tree?"

When I read Ezekiel 37, I see a glorious view of the NH&NE, whereas you see a millennium preceding that NH&NE. BUT, the Rev. 20 millennium, despite the binding of Satan, sees the souls of the martyrs resurrected to live & reign with Christ. It's not a bodily resurrection from the graves - that comes after the end of the "millennium," after a Satanic rebellion & fiery intervention from heaven. I don't read that in Ezekiel, nor in Jeremiah. I do read of such warfare - & I see it TV & the news. 

Edit - added:

Ex. 38 & 39 - The Gog-Magog war is alluded to in Rev. 19:17-21 (see Eze. 39:17-22 ) & referred to in Rev. 20:7-9 . That shows that the millennium is not the perfect state of the covenant fulfilment.

We are presently living in a millennium where the Gospel is preached, where Satan's captives are being freed by the Gospel, where the martyrs are living & reigning with Christ in glory, where opposition to the Gospel is still killing Jesus' martyrs. Jesus in John 5 explains the two resurrection situation:

²⁴ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ²⁵ Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ²⁶ For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; ²⁷ and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. ²⁸ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, ²⁹ and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus explains that conversion is a change from death to life - a spiritual resurrection that secures believers for the resurrection of life whereas those who continue in sin will suffer the resurrection of damnation.

In the present Gospel age sinners of all nations are called to repent, & by faith in Jesus become children of Abraham, members of Israel, along with physical descendants of Abraham. These may or may not call themselves Jews. God knows. But it makes no difference. God is keeping/confirming his covenant promises by the Gospel, & ALL who come to Jesus are welcome. I don't see in Scripture a Gospel for a future dispensation after Jesus' return. Certainly not in Daniel 9.   

 

Edited August 23, 2015 by Covenanter
Deletion of an extra "the", paragraph addition.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

The word Flood translated from sheteph

1. Psalm 32:6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods (sheteph)  of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

2. Dan 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 (sheteph), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

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

4. Nah 1:8 But with an overrunning flood (sheteph) he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.

5. Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters (sheteph), or a way for the lightning of thunder;

6. Pro 27:4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous (sheteph); but who is able to stand before envy?

The word Flood translated from nahar.

Dan 10:4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river (nahar), which is Hiddekel;

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a river (nahar), the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

nahar is used 120 times

Being two different words and a word that Daniel himself used in chapter 10, could you two men please explain why you reject the idea it is water and accept the idea it is people? Also how much would it change your doctrines if its water and not people?

Brother Ken,

1.  Concerning the English word "flood."

The English word "flood" is a part of the English word family that is based in the English word "flow."  As such, the basic meaning for the English word "flood" is "flowing over, or overflowing."  In common communication the word "flood" usually refers to an overflowing of water.  However, the English word "flood" can also be used for an overflowing of other things, such as -- a flood of money, or flood of problems, or a flood of customers, etc.

2.  Concerning the Hebrew word "nahar."

I do not believe that this Hebrew word has any direct relevancy to our study of Daniel 9:26, since this is not Hebrew word that was employed under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in Daniel 9:26.

3.  Concerning the Hebrew noun "sheteph."

The basic meaning for this Hebrew noun is the same as the basic meaning for the English word "flood," that is -- "overflowing."  As you have noted above, this Hebrew noun is employed six times throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.  

In Job 38:25 the word clearly refers to the overflowing of waters, as follows -- "Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder."  

In Psalm 32:6 the word also refers to the overflowing of water; however, in this context this overflowing of water is employed as a picturesque figure for an abundance of circumstantial troubles, as follows -- "For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him. Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah."  (verse 6-7)

In Proverbs 27:4 the word clearly does not refer to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing offense and damage of sinful anger, as follows -- "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?"

Daniel 9:26 is the passage in question and under discussion.

In Daniel 11:22 the word clearly does not refer to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing of "arms" (that is -- not of the body parts, but of armed forces, as in Daniel 11:15, 31), as follows -- "And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant."

In Nahum 1:8 the word appears in its context to refer, not to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing of the fire of God's fierce and furious indignation and judgment, as follows -- "Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies."

So then, from an examination of the five passages other the one in question (Daniel 9;26), we learn that the Hebrew word "sheteph," although referencing an overflowing, does not necessary refer to the overflowing of water.  What then about Daniel 9:26?  In order to understand the intended meaning in this passage, we must consider the context.  First, the context of Daniel 9:26 itself clearly is speaking concerning the destructive force of armies against Jerusalem.  Second, the only other usage of this Hebrew word in the broader context of the entire book of Daniel (Daniel 11:22) employs the word in relation to the overflowing of armed forces.  Third, the verb form ("shahtaph") of this Hebrew noun is also employed four times in the book of Daniel (in Daniel 11:10, 22, 26, 40), wherein it is translated as "overflow" three times and "overflown" one time.  In every one of these cases, this Hebrew appears also to be referencing the overflowing of armies and military forces.  As such, through this contextual study, I am moved to conclude the Hebrew noun "sheteph" is employed in Daniel 9:26 also in reference, not to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing of armies and military forces.

Brother Ken, I pray that this will be of help to answer your question.

 

[MountainChristian]

Thank you pastor Scott

[Covenanter]

Regarding "the covenant" "which covenant" "some covenant" ....

A visitor to Oxford spent a few days going round all the colleges, looking for Oxford University. He never found it.... 

 

[MountainChristian]

Scott thank you for your hard work in the Debate.

Covenanter than you for your work too.

[Covenanter]

I'll make a simple reply here, before my final posting in the debate thread, so I can attract comments needing consideration.

Bro. Scott:

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.  The Lord our God desires that we should study His Holy Word according to the principle of precise detail, “rightly dividing” precisely in accord with the precise pattern that God the Holy Spirit has inspired.  Indeed, in Deuteronomy 8:3 the Lord our God teaches the truth that we do not live by physical food alone, but “by every word” that has proceeded out of His mouth as recorded in His Holy Word.  In Matthew 5:18 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the importance of every “jot and tittle” in God’s Holy Word, indicating that not even one of them would pass “till all be fulfilled.”  Even so, any Bible study or Bible teaching that follows a method of loose generalities, wherein things that are not precisely presented in God’s Word as the same are claimed to be the same, should be rejected as faulty.  Indeed, when a Biblical position teaches us that there is “no need to study every detail” of the truths and promises of God’s Word concerning a matter, or that there is no need to ask concerning specific details of truth on a matter because it would be superfluous to do so, then that position of belief should be viewed with spiritual suspicion. 

[/quote]

 

What Bro. Scott is objecting to is this reply to a series of questions:

Q4. The basic Covenant relationship of God with his people - the IF clause (e.g. Exo. 19:5  Lev. 26:3,14,15), requiring Israel's obedience being replaced by Jesus' perfect obedience. Jesus was born under the old covenant, fulfilled every requirement to perfection, yet suffered the penalty for disobedience on the cross. 

No need to study every detail of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, nor to propose a future millennial fulfilment. We have a New Covenant relationship now, secured by Jesus, our covenant surety & the promise of the eternal blessed relationship in glory, in the NH&NE.

Jesus thus confirmed the covenant. No need to ask for a specific covenant - it's the whole relationship of God with his people.  

Q5. Daniel in his prayer confessed to a wholesale breach of covenant by the people - trespass, sin, rebellion, disobedience, transgression, etc, deserving the Divine curse, under the Old Covenant. All the covenant promises that called for obedience were utterly flouted. Yet Daniel prays for mercy & forgiveness - and receives the promise.

Q6. It is superfluous to ask which covenant? All are broken by Israel, & all are secured by Christ, & all will find their perfection in the NH&NE.

Of course you can study every detail if you wish, but the OC examples & shadows & patterns should be understood by their fulfilment by the Lord Jesus Christ. Hebrews 8, which quotes the NC prophesied by Jeremiah, introduces the NC thus:

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

   Hebrews lists the visible items of the OC in Heb. 9 and concludes:

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Clearly we should seek to understand the old covenant Scriptures in terms of their fulfilment by Jesus, in his earthly life, death at Calvary, his resurrection & ascension, & NOT look for a "resurrection" of the old covenant laws & rituals. 

A straightforward reading of Daniel 9:24-27 points to Jesus coming as the Messiah, finishing his saving work for his people as prophesied in v. 24, confirming the covenant promises for all who repent as Daniel did in his prayer, bringing to an end all the carnal ordinances, & judging those who refused to hear their Messiah. Week 70, naturally following week 69 runs from the baptism of Jesus for 7 years, with Calvary central, & concluding 1/2 way through Acts. 

If you want to believe in a seven year tribulation afflicting Israel at the end of this dispensation, after the rapture, and a rebuilt temple, renewed animal sacrifices, to be destroyed again & rebuilt again, and a millennium where mortal Jews, aka Israel, live in a perfect state surrounded by resurrected believers & increasingly ungodly nations, then you need to justify your beliefs by other Scriptures, particularly the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles. 

The 70 weeks prophecy was completed during the years following Pentecost, 490 years after it began. Repentant sinners were & are welcomed into a full New Covenant relationship with our Saviour God, our Lord Jesus Christ. All the redeemed are one people of God in Christ, Jew & Gentile eternally one body. That relationship is established as we respond to the Gospel; it is lived as the Holy Spirit lives within us; and it will be gloriously perfected in the New Heaven & New Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.