Comment On Current Debate

[Invicta]

Unless you are determined to misunderstand Brother Scott's point it is not difficult to know what he meant.

If any of you would like to show which particular covenant is being referred to - without guessing - it would clear it up immediately.

The point is that Brother Scott was not quoting scripture at that point but pointing out that the covenant is not defined in the passage - it just noted as "the covenant", not which particular covenant.

It would be like me saying "the car sped away from the crime scene" - you would know it was an individual and specific car, but not which car - was it a ford or a chevy? Was it green or blue?

In that instance you could also say some car sped away and it would still make sense.

However, if you are determined to find fault with him you can feign ignorance.​

What covenant do you guess it means?

I guess it means the "Promises made to the fathers."

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:

 

 

 

 

[Invicta]

The problem with this idea is that the sacrifice and oblation did not cease within the seven years of this proposed timeline.

The argument that is then put up is that it "effectively finished" - but that is not what the passage says.

And furthermore:

Heb 10:4  For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The sacrifices were NEVER effective:

Heb 10:1  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

So even the argument of "effectively stopped" is null.

This means that the reference to the sacrifice and oblation ceasing must under this idea be the destruction of the temple when the actual sacrifice and oblation ceased, which then has such supporters finding a 40 year gap in the midst of the last 7 years where no such gap is found nor even implied.

There are only two options for the supporters of this idea:

1. force the Bible to say what it doesn't (ceased to be effective), or

2. insert a 40 year gap into the last 7 years.

 

At this point I feel we should bring our side discussion on these points to a close. I would hate to cause confusion to Covenantor or Pastor Scott by them joining this conversation about items ahead of the debate, and they have both participated in this thread.

 

 

 

Edit to say: It just occurred to me that this last statement might be seen as stifling the discussion - if people want to continue then do so, but I genuinely think we should tread carefully so as not to affect the debate itself.

 

​It doesn't say he caused the covenant to cease at that time, but that he caused it to cease.  The cause was in that time.

[MountainChristian]

If one side refuses to participate surely that means they have conceded.  If one of the participants concedes, would the other participant please finish the debate? 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To all who have recently engaged me on this thread,

Responses are forthcoming as time permits.  I will seek to take each engagement in the order that it was delivered.  However, time will be needed for each response to be prepared and presented.

 

​Uh, its called 'discussion'. And Daniel was studying about Jeremiahs prophesy, and I think he was clearly looking at the 70 years getting to a finish.

So when I read this following verse or two, I assume when the Angel came and said he was there to explain to him his concerns, he did.

So Daniel says:

2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

And when the angel Gabriel comes on the scene he says:

21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

1.  ​Concerning your comment that it is called "discussion."

Indeed, it is called discussion.  You initiated the discussion with your discussion question.  I engaged in the discussion with a corrective to your discussion question, indicating that it was somewhat inaccurate and thus somewhat irrelevant to the context of Daniel 9:24-25.  

However, you will also notice that although I myself believe your question to be somewhat inaccurate and irrelevant to the context of Daniel 9:24-25, I did in fact put forth the effort to research and report an answer to your discussion question, as per the following:

As far as anything that happened historically around that time period, that may have had an impact upon the children of Israel -- According to Daniel 9:1 the events of this chapter occurred "in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasueres, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans."  In relation to this Daniel 6:28 seems to indicate either that this reign of Darius the Median over the realm of the Chaldeans was concurrent with the reign of Cyrus the Persian over the whole kingdom of Persia, or that this reign of Darius the Median (since he was 62 years old when he began to reign, as per Daniel 5:31) lasted only a short time and was quickly transferred to the reign of Cyrus the Persian.  Now, according to Ezra 1 it was in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that he made the decree for the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt.  For me, the most interesting aspect of this historical information is that Daniel himself would have lived long enough to know of Cyrus decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, since Daniel himself was still alive at least until the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (as per Daniel 10:1).

2.  Concerning your comments about the contextual flow of thought in Daniel 9 that precedes Daniel 9:24-27.

Yes, Daniel was indeed "studying about Jeremiah's prophesy" (as per Daniel 9:2); and it does appear that he was looking with expectation for the 70 year Babylonian captivity to be soon ending.  In fact, in Daniel 9:2 he declared that he possessed understanding from and concerning the prophetic utterances of Jeremiah concerning the years of the captivity.  Thus Daniel was not moved to engage in his prayer of confession and supplication because he lacked understanding.  Rather, he was moved to engage in his prayer of confession and supplication specifically because possessed understanding.

Furthermore, in the supplication portion of his prayer, Daniel did not present a request for understanding.  Rather, he presented a request for the Lord God's merciful forgiveness and favor to be poured out upon the children of Israel, upon the city of Jerusalem, and upon the temple in Jerusalem, as per the following in Daniel 9:16-19:

"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: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.  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: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.  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."

Therefore, the message of Daniel 9:24-27 was not delivered unto Daniel in order to answer any request on his part for understanding.  Rather, the message of Daniel 9:24-27 was delivered in order to reveal the Lord's intended answer into the future concerning Daniel's request for merciful forgiveness and favor upon the children of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple in Jerusalem.  Indeed, that is the very reason that Daniel 9:24 begins with the main clause -- "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy city and upon thy holy city."

[Pastor Scott Markle]

​Pastor Scott while in the flesh thy people are in a state of everlasting righteousness? Before Jesus is anointed King, you hold God will bring in everlasting righteousness upon thy people? While thy people are under the beasts' rule? Also do you see these thy people as being born again before Jesus returns? And thy people will have children born of the flesh in a state of everlasting righteousness? 

Sorry Ian, I was saving my questions and posted too soon. 

​Brother Ken,

First, I wish to commend you for some very thoughtful questions.  Now, these question appear to be divided into two parts -- (1) those concerning the period of time just before the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and (2) those concerning the time period after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1.  Concerning the questions concerning the period of time just before the Second Coming.

Before Jesus is anointed King, you hold God will bring in everlasting righteousness upon thy people?  While thy people are under the beasts' rule? 

No.  Although I believe that the the six-fold purpose and result statements are in a logical order that climaxes with the anointing of our Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings, I believe that these six purposes and results will actually happen in the same moment of time.  It would be similar to the elements of our eternal salvation from sin's condemnation and bondage.  We can place some of these elements in a logical order, such as redemption, cleansing, forgiveness, regeneration, imputation, justification, reconciliation, sanctification.  However, we would also recognize that these elements of our eternal salvation all actually become effective in the same moment of time.

Also do you see these thy people as being born again before Jesus returns?

I believe that many among the children of Israel will have placed heart-trust in Jesus as their Christ prior to the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, such that they will be believers in a similar fashion as the believers of the Old Testament time.  Now, there is some debate as to whether Old Testament believers were actually "born again" (regenerated), or were just eternally saved and eternally justified.  I myself presented believe that Old Testament believers were "born again" (regenerated) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that they just did not possess the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  Thus I would conclude that any among the children of Israel, who will place heart-faith in Jesus as their personal Savior and Christ at that time, will indeed become a born again believer immediately at the moment of heart-faith.

2.  Concerning the questions concerning the period of time after the Second Coming.

Pastor Scott while in the flesh thy people are in a state of everlasting righteousness? 

This appears to be the case in accord with such passages as Isaiah 1:24-27, Jeremiah 3:15-19, 31:31-37, 32:36-42, Ezekiel 36:24-38, and Ezekiel 37:21-28, as well as others that are scattered throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets which concern the children of Israel in the time period.

And thy people will have children born of the flesh in a state of everlasting righteousness? 

The best answer that I can give to this question would be through the quotation of the following two passages:

Isaiah 54:13 -- "And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children."

Jeremiah 32:39 -- "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them."

 

Again, I pray that these answers will be helpful in answering the questions that you have presented.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

So Bro. Scott, what exactly do you mean by this?

"Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference to the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.”  The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24). "

Specifically " this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

Just curious if you mean "some" here. 

​Brother "Genevanpreacher,"

In the portion of my posting that you quoted, I employed the modifier "some" twice.  In the first instance, I employed it to modify the word "he," as per the following -- "The opening line of this verse indicates that some 'he' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the pronoun "he" refers to a definitely specific individual.  However, the verse itself does not specifically define who this specific "he" is.  Furthermore, in the previous verse of Daniel 9:26, we find two possible antecedents for this pronoun "he."  Since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in the extensive discussion required to specify the correct antecedent for this pronoun "he," I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of the "he" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse for the "he."

In like manner, I employed the word "some" to modify the word "covenant," as per the following -- ". . . that some 'he' will 'confirm' some 'covenant with many' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the use of the definite article "the" as a modifier for the word "covenant" indicates that this covenant is a definitely specific "covenant."  However, again the verse itself does not specifically define what covenant this specific "covenant" is.  In fact, the definition for this specific "covenant" is not provided anywhere throughout the entire context of Daniel 9:24-27.  Now, I myself believe that an extended study throughout the entire context of the Book of Daniel would provide us with the means to determine the definition of this specific "covenant."  Yet since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in that extensive study, I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of "the covenant" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse and the immediate context.

I suppose that I could have communicated my point more clearly if I had employed the phrase "some specific" instead of just the modifier "some."  As such, my sentence would then read, "The opening line of this verse indicates that some specific 'he' will 'confirm' some specific 'covenant with many' . . . ."   

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother Day, 

I'm posting this here to illustrate a problem I have with Pastor Scott's approach to the debate. In this fragment of a post in the debate, he employs 800 words to respond to 100 of mine, & misquotes me so refuting at length a point I didn't make.

FYI a 30 minute sermon of mine takes about 2,000 words to explain the Scripture in context & apply it's teaching. The following, apart from the [ ... ] is a selection from Pastor Markle's post. 

​By nature, the more the need for a teacher to engage in explanations and evidences, the more the words that teacher will employ in order to communicate those very explanations and evidences.

 

 

. . . & misquotes me so refuting at length a point I didn't make.

Posted 17 April  by Pastor Markle

Now, in your most previous posting, you did present an opposition to the grammatical and contextual evidences and support that I have provided for my position on Daniel 9:24.  Indeed, your presented opposition appears to be delivered with the following statements:

 

​​I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy. 

 

[Note that I referred to "your grammatical analysis" & "complicated grammar" with no suggestion that grammatical analysis per se "of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance." And I did NOT "deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word." I hope it goes without saying that understanding grammar is necessary to understanding both the written word & speech. ]

Indeed, in the following quote you did make direct reference to my grammatical analysis -- "​​​I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy."

Indeed, in the following quote you did make direct reference to complicated grammar -- "I think in this case, the 70 weeks is so clearly specific that simple arithmetic overrules complicated grammar."

However, in the following quote you spoke against grammatical analysis in general, and that in specific relation to Biblical prophecy -- "We should judge prophecy both by its faithfulness to the Word, & by its fulfilment, not by grammatical analysis. (emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle) There is a danger of being Pharisaical. Also, we have the mind of Christ - 1 Cor. 2:16 - so we can look at prophecy with an new covenant, spiritual, Spirit-aided understanding."  Herein you indicated that we should (as a positive assertion) judge prophecy "by its faithfulness to the Word."  Herein you also indicated that we should (as a positive assertion) judge prophecy "by its fulfillment."  However, herein you also indicated that we should not (as a negative assertion) judge prophecy "by grammatical analysis."  Furthermore, herein you also imply that "there is a danger of being Pharisaical" if we examine a prophecy too closely "by grammatical analysis."  Finally, herein you even seem to imply that our having "the mind of Christ" should be set in contrast with an examination of "grammatical analysis," such that our having "the mind of Christ" might even allow us to disregard any grammatical analysis and might allow us through our "new covenant, spiritual, Spirit-aided understanding" to bypass any grammatical analysis.  Even so, in relation to the debate itself, I shall continue to contend that you did just as I accused -- You suggested through the above quotation that the grammatical analysis "of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance."

 

I hope it goes without saying that understanding grammar is necessary to understanding both the written word & speech. ]

I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy. 

Just above I have presented two quotes from you.  The first of these quotes indicates your agreement that "understanding grammar is necessary" for a correct understanding of written and spoken communication, which would imply that it is also necessary for a correct understanding of God's Holy Word, since it is a written communication as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  The second of the quotes indicates you disapproval and disagreement with my own grammatical analysis of Daniel 9:24.  Therefore, I would request that you might, within the context of the debate itself, demonstrate the specific points at which my grammatical analysis of Daniel 9:24 is in specific error.  Since you claim that grammatical analysis is important, yet believe that my grammatical analysis is in error, you yourself ought to present the correct grammatical analysis and ought to reveal wherein my grammatical analysis is in error.

 

I think in this case, the 70 weeks is so clearly specific that simple arithmetic overrules complicated grammar.

By nature, correct grammatical analysis will be just as complicated as the sentence that is being analyzed.  If a simple sentence of only three to six words is being analyzed, then correct grammatical analysis will be somewhat simple also.  However, Daniel 9:24 is not such a simple sentence of only few words.  Rather, Daniel 9:24 is a more complex sentence of 49 words (if my count is correct), containing a main clause that is modified by six infinitive clauses.

 

Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. (quoted from Pastor Scott Markle)

Actually I question that final statement. Most people who can read have enough grammar to understand what they are reading.  Only believers have a spiritual understanding - an understanding aided by the indwelling Holy Spirit - as they believe & practise what they read & understand. Many (most?) theologians & preachers fail to understand correctly what they read, teach & preach, however perfect their grammar. 

Indeed, only believers possess the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit in order that we may understand the truths that the Lord our God has prepared for us in His Holy Word.  Even so, my statement above does not in any manner contradict this; for throughout my statement above I continually make reference to the "we" and the "us."  This usage of the "we" and the "us" pronouns in my above statement indicates that I was only applying my comments to the "we" and the "us" who are believers, such that my quote could have stated as follows:

Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us [believers] in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we [believers] can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us [believers]  through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
Added the comments concerning "complicated grammar."

[Pastor Scott Markle]

​Our preacher this evening said "If you can't find anything I said in the bible or for that matter what any other preacher says don't believe us. "

I  cannot find the following in Daniel.  

some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

But I can find    "he shall confirm the covenant with many"

Note the definite article.  He shall confirm the existing covenant with many.

​Brother "Invicta,"

I have provided in my above answer to Brother "Genevanpreahcer" (here) my reasons for employing the word "some" in my explanation for Daniel 9:27.  In fact, my use of the modifier "some" was presented in an explanation for the verse, not in a direct quotation of the verse.  Furthermore, within my explanation I placed quotation marks around only those portions that were directly quoted from the verse, in order to signify those portions of my explanation that were directly from God's Holy Word and those portions that were a part of my own explanation.

On the other hand, it is interesting for me to note that in your explanation of the verse, you yourself also added a word that is not found in Daniel 9:27.  In the following quote, you yourself added the word "existing" -- "He shall confirm the existing covenant with many"  Yet the word "existing" is not found in the verse.  So then, do you hold to a different set of rules for yourself than for others?  Or, have you yourself fallen on the ground of self-contradiction, such that you yourself also can now be accused by your preacher's admonition?

Now, I myself do not actually have a problem with your addition of the word "existing" in your attempt to explain your understanding of the verse.  I fully understand that when we engage in the process of explanation, we will employ terminology that is not always directly found within a given passage.  Such is the very nature of the process of explanation.  Even so, I would request that you might afford me the same courtesy of understanding when I engage in the process of explanation.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

If one side refuses to participate surely that means they have conceded.  If one of the participants concedes, would the other participant please finish the debate? 

​Brother Ken,

This "participant" is more than willing to "finish the debate" in any case, or at least to finish explaining my understanding concerning the remainder of the passage.

[Invicta]

​Brother "Invicta,"

I have provided in my above answer to Brother "Genevanpreahcer" (here) my reasons for employing the word "some" in my explanation for Daniel 9:27.  In fact, my use of the modifier "some" was presented in an explanation for the verse, not in a direct quotation of the verse.  Furthermore, within my explanation I placed quotation marks around only those portions that were directly quoted from the verse, in order to signify those portions of my explanation that were directly from God's Holy Word and those portions that were a part of my own explanation.

On the other hand, it is interesting for me to note that in your explanation of the verse, you yourself also added a word that is not found in Daniel 9:27.  In the following quote, you yourself added the word "existing" -- "He shall confirm the existing covenant with many"  Yet the word "existing" is not found in the verse.  So then, do you hold to a different set of rules for yourself than for others?  Or, have you yourself fallen on the ground of self-contradiction, such that you yourself also can now be accused by your preacher's admonition?

Now, I myself do not actually have a problem with your addition of the word "existing" in your attempt to explain your understanding of the verse.  I fully understand that when we engage in the process of explanation, we will employ terminology that is not always directly found within a given passage.  Such is the very nature of the process of explanation.  Even so, I would request that you might afford me the same courtesy of understanding when I engage in the process of explanation.

 

​Bro Scott

Thanks for your comment. The fact that the text includes the word "the"  means, according to the usual rules of grammar that the covenant already exists.  

 

David S.

[DaveW]

​Bro Scott

Thanks for your comment. The fact that the text includes the word "the"  means, according to the usual rules of grammar that the covenant already exists.  

 

David S.

No it doesn't - it refers to something specific. For instance: when the Titanic was on the drawing board the designer may have said something like "the ship will be virtually unsinkable".

The ship did not exist at that time, but there would one day be a specific ship that the statement referred to.

It is a specific covenant, but not necessarily a pre-existing covenant.

Edited May 15, 2015 by DaveW

[Invicta]

No it doesn't - it refers to something specific. For instance: when the Titanic was on the drawing board the designer may have said something like "the ship will be virtually unsinkable".

The ship did not exist at that time, but there would one day be a specific ship that the statement referred to.

It is a specific covenant, but not necessarily a pre-existing covenant.

​Now you are being silly.

 I think Daniel would have known which covenant was being referred to 

[DaveW]

​Now you are being silly.

 I think Daniel would have known which covenant was being referred to 

Well, thank you for that. It is greatly appreciated.......

[Covenanter]

​Our preacher this evening said "If you can't find anything I said in the bible or for that matter what any other preacher says don't believe us. "

I  cannot find the following in Daniel.  

some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

But I can find    "he shall confirm the covenant with many"

Note the definite article.  He shall confirm the existing covenant with many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​Brother "Invicta,"

I have provided in my above answer to Brother "Genevanpreahcer" (here) my reasons for employing the word "some" in my explanation for Daniel 9:27.  In fact, my use of the modifier "some" was presented in an explanation for the verse, not in a direct quotation of the verse.  Furthermore, within my explanation I placed quotation marks around only those portions that were directly quoted from the verse, in order to signify those portions of my explanation that were directly from God's Holy Word and those portions that were a part of my own explanation.

On the other hand, it is interesting for me to note that in your explanation of the verse, you yourself also added a word that is not found in Daniel 9:27.  In the following quote, you yourself added the word "existing" -- "He shall confirm the existing covenant with many"  Yet the word "existing" is not found in the verse.  So then, do you hold to a different set of rules for yourself than for others?  Or, have you yourself fallen on the ground of self-contradiction, such that you yourself also can now be accused by your preacher's admonition?

Now, I myself do not actually have a problem with your addition of the word "existing" in your attempt to explain your understanding of the verse.  I fully understand that when we engage in the process of explanation, we will employ terminology that is not always directly found within a given passage.  Such is the very nature of the process of explanation.  Even so, I would request that you might afford me the same courtesy of understanding when I engage in the process of explanation.

 

Another deliberate misquote, or misunderstanding of straightforward grammar, this time against Brother David. He quoted the Scripture exactly, in quotes and italics, and added"existing" in his comment to indicate that the "the" implied grammatically an existing covenant.

[DaveW]

If we are going to start throwing around deliberate misquotes, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations, then you should tread very carefully - glass houses, stones, and the like.