Daniel 9 - Ending Sacrifice and offering

[rhutchin]

I assume below that Daniel 9:25-27 speaks of Christ. We might read it in the following manner.


25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until [Christ comes], There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
26 And after the sixty-two weeks [Christ] shall be [crucified], but not for Himself; And the people of [Christ] Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then [Christ] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week [Christ] shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

v27 refers to Christ bringing an end to sacrifice and offering. I see this as one consequence of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. When Christ was crucified, the veil in the temple was torn in two. His resurrection then sealed the deal, so to speak. God no longer required sacrifices and offerings for the remission of sin. From this point, "The just shall live by faith" which was always true but now it no longer required the physical sacrifice of bulls and goats.

From this I conclude that the week in view in v27 encompassed the crucifixion and the crucifixion was the event in the middle of the week that brought an end to sacrifice and offering.

How do others see it?

[Hitch]

Kinda undercuts the new temple and that drivel dosnt it?


Take care

H

[dizzle]

I see it as you do. And as a great many people throughout church history have. No Handy Dandy Gap Insertertm or Baloney Launcher (some assembly required) is needed

[Zguy28]

It all seems to work except for the part where you say Christ's people destroy the temple.

I didn't know the Romans were Christ's people then? Or is my history wrong?

[Ted]

The OP is exactly right. The term "people of the Prince who is to come" refers to the Jews. They were His people. And they caused the destruction of Jerusalem, even if it happened at the hands of Roman soldiers.

For comparison, consider Daniel's prayer in chapter 9. There he clearly attributes the destruction of Jerusalem in 586BC (at the hands of Babylonian soldiers) to the covenant breaking of the Jews. Recall the Jeremiah calls Nebby "God's servant" in carrying out this task.

Ted

[David_A_Reed]

I assume below that Daniel 9:25-27 speaks of Christ.
...
How do others see it?Others including John Calvin and Martin Luther agree:

"Hence he [the prophet Daniel] also says, Christ shall take a half a week, in which the daily offerings shall cease; that is, the priesthood and reign of the Jews shall have an end; which all took place in the three and a half years in which Christ preached, and was almost completed in four years after Christ..."
—Martin Luther, "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28"
from his Church Postil, first published in 1525
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

"The Prophet now subjoins, He will make to cease the sacrifice and offering for half a week. We ought to refer this to the time of the resurrection. For while Christ passed through the period of his life on earth, he did not put an end to the sacrifices; but after he had offered himself up as a victim, then all the rites of the law came to a close. ...This is the Prophet's intention when he says, Christ should cause the sacrifices to cease for half a week. ...Christ really and effectually put an end to the sacrifices of the Law..." (Lecture Fifty-Second)
—John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel - Volume 2
Available on the web at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/iv.xx.htm on the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" provided by Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Michigan

In fact, this was the prevailing view among Bible readers for hundreds of years, until the early 1900s when dispensationalism swept through the churches.

David

[Tanakh Keeper]

I assume below that Daniel 9:25-27 speaks of Christ. We might read it in the following manner.

(snip)

How do others see it?

The Christian bible differs from the Jewish bible. Not only in specific verses, but also in the order of the books.

21. While I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision at first, approached me in swift flight about the time of the evening offering.
22. And he enabled me to understand, and he spoke with me, and he said, "Daniel, now I have come forth to make you skillful in understanding.
23. In the beginning of your supplications, a word came forth, and I have come to tell it, for you have desirable qualities; now contemplate the word and understand the vision.
24. Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
25. And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks; and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times.
26. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.

Basically, Daniel is talking about two events, not one. He tells us about King Cyrus of Persia, the Messiah (Isa 45:1) who started to rebuild the Second Temple. Our sages disagree about the one that was karet, or spiritually cut off (i.e. a wicked person). One group says the cut off one's identity was Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest that was removed from office by the Romans around 36 CE. The other common viewpoint is that the cut off one was Agrippa, the last Jewish King at the end of the Second Temple Era. After his death, the Roman general Titus destroyed the Second Temple.

[rhutchin]

The Christian bible differs from the Jewish bible. Not only in specific verses, but also in the order of the books.

21. While I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision at first, approached me in swift flight about the time of the evening offering.
22. And he enabled me to understand, and he spoke with me, and he said, "Daniel, now I have come forth to make you skillful in understanding.
23. In the beginning of your supplications, a word came forth, and I have come to tell it, for you have desirable qualities; now contemplate the word and understand the vision.
24. Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
25. And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks; and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times.
26. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.

Basically, Daniel is talking about two events, not one. He tells us about King Cyrus of Persia, the Messiah (Isa 45:1) who started to rebuild the Second Temple. Our sages disagree about the one that was karet, or spiritually cut off (i.e. a wicked person). One group says the cut off one's identity was Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest that was removed from office by the Romans around 36 CE. The other common viewpoint is that the cut off one was Agrippa, the last Jewish King at the end of the Second Temple Era. After his death, the Roman general Titus destroyed the Second Temple.

What I find interesting is the 7 week/62 week difference between the versions which makes for a staggering difference in what a person perceives the verses to be telling us.

However, the reading above introduces a cast of characters that are not easily identified and cannot be identified through the information provided to us in the Bible. I have this aversion to having to rely on documents outside the Bible to determine what the Bible says. It gives me heartburn. Regardless, it would be nice to know what the actual translation should be.

[Tanakh Keeper]

What I find interesting is the 7 week/62 week difference between the versions which makes for a staggering difference in what a person perceives the verses to be telling us.

In Hebrew as well as in English, if a person meant 69, they would say sixty and nine. Also, the Hebrew context and grammar points to two prophecies as well.

However, the reading above introduces a cast of characters that are not easily identified and cannot be identified through the information provided to us in the Bible. I have this aversion to having to rely on documents outside the Bible to determine what the Bible says. It gives me heartburn. Regardless, it would be nice to know what the actual translation should be.

Yes, that is another difference between Judaism and Christianity. When we got our bible at inception, we always knew it needed a "companion set". In this case, the Oral Teachings. It was so obvious to us. In multiple places in the Tanakh, the language reads "G-d said to do yada yada yada as I have instructed you". Since the instruction was not in the Written Teachings, obviously something else provided the divine instructions.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
What I find interesting is the 7 week/62 week difference between the versions which makes for a staggering difference in what a person perceives the verses to be telling us.

Tanakh Keeper
In Hebrew as well as in English, if a person meant 69, they would say sixty and nine. Also, the Hebrew context and grammar points to two prophecies as well.

It's the sentence construction that interests me. In one translation, we have--


25 ...from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;...NKJV

In other we have--

25 ...from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.RSV

Big difference. Which is correct?


rhutchin
However, the reading above introduces a cast of characters that are not easily identified and cannot be identified through the information provided to us in the Bible. I have this aversion to having to rely on documents outside the Bible to determine what the Bible says. It gives me heartburn. Regardless, it would be nice to know what the actual translation should be.

Tanakh Keeper
Yes, that is another difference between Judaism and Christianity. When we got our bible at inception, we always knew it needed a "companion set". In this case, the Oral Teachings. It was so obvious to us. In multiple places in the Tanakh, the language reads "G-d said to do yada yada yada as I have instructed you". Since the instruction was not in the Written Teachings, obviously something else provided the divine instructions.

Yeah, we call them commentaries -- speculations of various people on what the Bible means. It is obvious to many people that there is a lot of disagreement about what the Bible means by what it says.

However, it would be nice to know what the Bible says even if we can't agree on what it means.

[Berean Todd]

I assume below that Daniel 9:25-27 speaks of Christ. We might read it in the following manner.


25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until [Christ comes], There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

26 And after the sixty-two weeks [Christ] shall be [crucified], but not for Himself; And the people of [Christ] Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then [Christ] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week [Christ] shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

v27 refers to Christ bringing an end to sacrifice and offering. I see this as one consequence of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. When Christ was crucified, the veil in the temple was torn in two. His resurrection then sealed the deal, so to speak. God no longer required sacrifices and offerings for the remission of sin. From this point, "The just shall live by faith" which was always true but now it no longer required the physical sacrifice of bulls and goats.

From this I conclude that the week in view in v27 encompassed the crucifixion and the crucifixion was the event in the middle of the week that brought an end to sacrifice and offering.

How do others see it?

Up to the word Crucified I am ok with your alterations to the text, but each altering adding Christ after that I would greatly disagree with. I would also point out that your reading has the "People of [Christ] ..." destroying both Jerusalem and the temple, but in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed it they were very much a pagan people, so your reading shows to be very wrong just on that point alone.

[rhutchin]

Up to the word Crucified I am ok with your alterations to the text, but each altering adding Christ after that I would greatly disagree with. I would also point out that your reading has the "People of [Christ] ..." destroying both Jerusalem and the temple, but in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed it they were very much a pagan people, so your reading shows to be very wrong just on that point alone.

OK. Do you have an argument for not reading the passage consistently throughout. When the passage uses the term, "messiah the prince," should we not read further occurances of the word, "prince," to mean the Messiah unless something in the context tells us to look for a different prince?

It seems to be that you have first decided that the "people of the prince" ought to be Rome when the Biblical context would identify them as the Jews. How do you introduce the Roman army based on what we read within the Scriptures?

[Berean Todd]

OK. Do you have an argument for not reading the passage consistently throughout. When the passage uses the term, "messiah the prince," should we not read further occurances of the word, "prince," to mean the Messiah unless something in the context tells us to look for a different prince?

You miss something. The phrase does not say the "people of the prince", but rather that prince is qualified with an attached clause. It reads "The people of the prince who is to come".

Note the future tense there (who IS TO COME), contrasted to the fact that the prophecy not only has Messiah allready there, but allready cut off/crucified. The princes are not the same. It seems quite simple and plain to me.

It seems to be that you have first decided that the "people of the prince" ought to be Rome when the Biblical context would identify them as the Jews. How do you introduce the Roman army based on what we read within the Scriptures?

How did the Jews destory Jerusalem and the temple then if you are claiming that is the case? Or are you some sort of open theist and you believe this to be an unfulfilled/wrong prophecy? Because it is very clear historically just who destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple. In your reading of the passage you put "the people of [Christ] ..." would destroy the city. If you interpret that to be the Jews, then again, explain to me how the Jews are responsible for the destruction of either Jerusalem or the temple.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK. Do you have an argument for not reading the passage consistently throughout. When the passage uses the term, "messiah the prince," should we not read further occurances of the word, "prince," to mean the Messiah unless something in the context tells us to look for a different prince?

Berean Todd
You miss something. The phrase does not say the "people of the prince", but rather that prince is qualified with an attached clause. It reads "The people of the prince who is to come".

Note the future tense there (who IS TO COME), contrasted to the fact that the prophecy not only has Messiah allready there, but allready cut off/crucified. The princes are not the same. It seems quite simple and plain to me.

I can see how you read it that way although I think it would make that point better if it read, "...the people of A prince who is to come..." Given that the prophecy is written by Daniel several hundred years before Christ, the identification of Messiah the prince as the prince who is to come would seem to be the natural reading and confirmed by the arrival of that prince when Christ was born attested by the wise men who came searching for the king of the Jews.

However, if we follow your sense of the verse, who is the other "prince who is to come" from Daniel 9? And why should we care given that such a prince does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. What "prince" might the prophecy be comparing to, and putting on the same level as, "Messiah the prince"?


rhutchin
It seems to be that you have first decided that the "people of the prince" ought to be Rome when the Biblical context would identify them as the Jews. How do you introduce the Roman army based on what we read within the Scriptures?

Berean Todd
How did the Jews destory Jerusalem and the temple then if you are claiming that is the case? Or are you some sort of open theist and you believe this to be an unfulfilled/wrong prophecy? Because it is very clear historically just who destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple. In your reading of the passage you put "the people of [Christ] ..." would destroy the city. If you interpret that to be the Jews, then again, explain to me how the Jews are responsible for the destruction of either Jerusalem or the temple.

I am not entirely sure, but that does not mean that we force fit the prophecy into some other mold.

We find the following--


19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Here Jesus identifies Himself with the temple and the Jews did not understand Him. It could be that in identifying Himself as a temple, Jesus means to identify Himself as the sanctuary of Daniel 9 further cementing His claim to be the Messiah as foretold in Daniel 9. Identifying Christ as the "city and the sanctuary" of Daniel 9 would fit the sense of the prophecy dealing with "Messiah the prince."

Regardless, there seem to be two ways that a person can go in trying to unravel the prophecy. One way is that which you have done; consult historical records and make the prophecy fit what history records. The second is to consult the rest of the Bible and make the prophecy fit what the Bible records.

[Berean Todd]

However, if we follow your sense of the verse, who is the other "prince who is to come" from Daniel 9? And why should we care given that such a prince does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. What "prince" might the prophecy be comparing to, and putting on the same level as, "Messiah the prince"?

Remember that chapter numbers are arbitrary and very late additions to the text. In the course of Daniel, he had just finished the prophecy of the litle horn, which is the beast of revelation. That is who is referred to in that passage.

I am not entirely sure, but that does not mean that we force fit the prophecy into some other mold.

That is a huge thing to just say "well I don't know." Because by your reading you have God giving a false prophecy. So either you must become an Open Theist and believe that God can be wrong and make failed prophecies, or else there must be some other reading which is correct, and which you did not put fourth.

We find the following--


19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Here Jesus identifies Himself with the temple and the Jews did not understand Him. It could be that in identifying Himself as a temple, Jesus means to identify Himself as the sanctuary of Daniel 9 further cementing His claim to be the Messiah as foretold in Daniel 9. Identifying Christ as the "city and the sanctuary" of Daniel 9 would fit the sense of the prophecy dealing with "Messiah the prince."

Identifying Messiah with the sanctuary is a bit of a stretch, but one I am not going to be too harsh on. However, using your logic here that Messiah could be the sanctuary, and then claiming that He is both the city and the sanctuary is a leap of logic that is too far. Occam's Razor here, you are having to come up with some pretty convulted possibilities when the text very strait-forward says that the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary will be destroyed.

Regardless, there seem to be two ways that a person can go in trying to unravel the prophecy. One way is that which you have done; consult historical records and make the prophecy fit what history records. The second is to consult the rest of the Bible and make the prophecy fit what the Bible records.

I take great offense at your insinuations. I take the Bible to say what it says. You are the one who has either a false prophecy by God, or else an extremely convoluted solution to your problem. I am the one who is taking the passage at its normal, plain reading. So the question is - can God's prophecies fail? I would hate to push you towards open theism, as I have no respect for it, but that is what your position on this passage almost requires.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
However, if we follow your sense of the verse, who is the other "prince who is to come" from Daniel 9? And why should we care given that such a prince does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. What "prince" might the prophecy be comparing to, and putting on the same level as, "Messiah the prince"?

Berean Todd
Remember that chapter numbers are arbitrary and very late additions to the text. In the course of Daniel, he had just finished the prophecy of the litle horn, which is the beast of revelation. That is who is referred to in that passage.

That is all well and good. However, you still need a logical explanation for why the little horn is the beast of Revelation and then what this has to do with the "prince who is to come." We can't just say that such and such is true without tracing through the Scriptures to actually show that it is true.


rhutchin
I am not entirely sure, but that does not mean that we force fit the prophecy into some other mold.

Berean Todd
That is a huge thing to just say "well I don't know." Because by your reading you have God giving a false prophecy. So either you must become an Open Theist and believe that God can be wrong and make failed prophecies, or else there must be some other reading which is correct, and which you did not put fourth.

It is not God who can be wrong, but we who are prone to misunderstand that which God has said. We know that God has told us the truth so we can work with that truth to understand what God says in the Bible. However, you seem to be saying that we need to go outside the Bible and consult historical accounts to really understand what God has said in the Bible. I am leery of going down that road.


rhutchin
We find the following--


19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Here Jesus identifies Himself with the temple and the Jews did not understand Him. It could be that in identifying Himself as a temple, Jesus means to identify Himself as the sanctuary of Daniel 9, further cementing His claim to be the Messiah as foretold in Daniel 9. Identifying Christ as the "city and the sanctuary" of Daniel 9, would fit the sense of the prophecy dealing with "Messiah the prince."

Berean Todd
Identifying Messiah with the sanctuary is a bit of a stretch, but one I am not going to be too harsh on. However, using your logic here that Messiah could be the sanctuary, and then claiming that He is both the city and the sanctuary is a leap of logic that is too far. Occam's Razor here, you are having to come up with some pretty convulted possibilities when the text very strait-forward says that the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary will be destroyed.

Identifying Christ with the temple is easy since Christ referred to Himself as the temple. Is it really a stretch to identify the temple with the sanctuary? Seems plausible to me. Certainly the temple (Christ) was destroyed (crucified) by the Jews (the people of the prince - Christ - who was to come). There is a logic to it based on that which the Bible tells us. You must go outside the Bible and consult historical accounts to gain a different understanding. Clearly the interpretation is difficult but Jesus purposely spoke in parables that were difficult to understand and which we probably would not understand if He had not explained them to us. The Bible can be extremely difficult reading, especially the OT, even when Christ plainly tells us that the OT is about Him.


rhutchin
Regardless, there seem to be two ways that a person can go in trying to unravel the prophecy. One way is that which you have done; consult historical records and make the prophecy fit what history records. The second is to consult the rest of the Bible and make the prophecy fit what the Bible records.

Berean Todd
I take great offense at your insinuations. I take the Bible to say what it says. You are the one who has either a false prophecy by God, or else an extremely convoluted solution to your problem. I am the one who is taking the passage at its normal, plain reading. So the question is - can God's prophecies fail? I would hate to push you towards open theism, as I have no respect for it, but that is what your position on this passage almost requires.

Why get upset? If you take the Bible for what it says, then you ought to be able to explain what the Bible says using only that which the Bible says. Are you upset because you cannot do this? God's prophecies cannot fail but people can fail to understand those prophecies correctly.

[timspong]

BTW the significance of the seventy weeks is 70x7 years = 490years.

Daniel 9:25
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.
KJV

Notice what it says that from the decree of Cyrus (as predicted in Isa 44:28) to the coming of Christ shall be (7x7= 49) plus (62x7=434) which equals 69 weeks or 483 years. In fact sir Robert Anderson did all the math and discovered that from the day the decree was announced until the day of Christ’s triumphal entry was exactly 483 years to the day.

This leaves 1 week.

(be careful though as some translations (eg ESV) obscure the literal translation of verse 25)

As per all prophetic writings Daniel has absolutely no idea about the hidden Church age. So the prophetic "gap" theory comes into effect halfway through verse 26.

As we are still in the church age and in the prophetic “gap” the last week is still yet to come.


ADDITIONAL INFO:
I didn’t want to bore some with a long post so this is supplementary to my OP answer:
So what happens in the last week of 7 years?

Daniel 9:26-27
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.
KJV

The prince here is the antichrist (NOT Christ) who will confirm the covenant to rebuild the temple described in great detail in Ezekiel 40 on.

In fact the whole of the last week is described in great detail as the book of Revelation. Notice that half way through at 31/2 years (42 months) the antichrist causes the sacrifice and oblation in the temple to cease which is described in great detail in Revelation.

Also notice that the consummation (day of the Lord) is at the end of that week so it can’t have already happened.

Notice in Revelation 11:2-3 that both 42months and 1260 days both equal 31/2 years and add up to the missing 7 years.

Revelation 11:2-3
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
KJV

I have been a brief as possible but if you want more info check out
http://www.gcaarchive.com/revelation.shtml
It is a great (& massive) MP3 series on eschatology but if you listen to the first few recording it gives you a good overview.

[timspong]

It all seems to work except for the part where you say Christ's people destroy the temple.

I didn't know the Romans were Christ's people then? Or is my history wrong?

This is where the preterists/amill's try to adapt scripture to their theories. The "prince to come" spoken of in verse 26 is the antichrist, not Christ. AKA the little horn.

Daniel 8:9-11
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn , which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
KJV

Also the temple he destroys is not even built yet (Ezekiel 40)


also notice all the things that are to be acomplished by the end of the seventy weeks.

Daniel 9:24
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.
KJV

Its seems as if there is plenty to do before the end of the seventy weeks

[timspong]

The OP is exactly right. The term "people of the Prince who is to come" refers to the Jews. They were His people. And they caused the destruction of Jerusalem, even if it happened at the hands of Roman soldiers.

For comparison, consider Daniel's prayer in chapter 9. There he clearly attributes the destruction of Jerusalem in 586BC (at the hands of Babylonian soldiers) to the covenant breaking of the Jews. Recall the Jeremiah calls Nebby "God's servant" in carrying out this task.

Ted

Daniel 8:9-11
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn , which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
KJV

Again I quote that the "prince to come" is the little horn aka the antichrist aka the first beast in Rv 13.

[timspong]

Others including John Calvin and Martin Luther agree:

"Hence he [the prophet Daniel] also says, Christ shall take a half a week, in which the daily offerings shall cease; that is, the priesthood and reign of the Jews shall have an end; which all took place in the three and a half years in which Christ preached, and was almost completed in four years after Christ..."
—Martin Luther, "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28"
from his Church Postil, first published in 1525
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

"The Prophet now subjoins, He will make to cease the sacrifice and offering for half a week. We ought to refer this to the time of the resurrection. For while Christ passed through the period of his life on earth, he did not put an end to the sacrifices; but after he had offered himself up as a victim, then all the rites of the law came to a close. ...This is the Prophet's intention when he says, Christ should cause the sacrifices to cease for half a week. ...Christ really and effectually put an end to the sacrifices of the Law..." (Lecture Fifty-Second)
—John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel - Volume 2
Available on the web at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/iv.xx.htm on the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" provided by Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Michigan

In fact, this was the prevailing view among Bible readers for hundreds of years, until the early 1900s when dispensationalism swept through the churches.

David

The reformation was purely about soteriology (salvation) rather than eschatology (end times) so Calvin et al merely kept to the same eschatological view that has been prevalent since the time of Constantine.

However, if you look at early church writing it is predominantly chiliastic (i.e. premillenial), as was the traditional Jewish view, so to say it only became a factor in the 1900 is a bit of a distortion.

Among its many proponents were: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Barnabas, Papias, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.

In fact it was only really opposed by a few with the most notable being Origen who is infamous for initiating the very dubious allegorical method of biblical interpretation that is so prevalent (e.g.TBN).

I.e. take any verse and you can make it mean anything you want and if you make it mean something that no one has thought of before all the better.

BTW I have nothing against Calvin or the reformation, however, it only really went half way.

[rhutchin]

..

Again I quote that the "prince to come" is the little horn aka the antichrist aka the first beast in Rv 13.

Since this is a key point in your argument, can you walk us through the Scriptures to get us to this conclusion?

[timspong]

Over-riding this whole issue is the fact that the church age was hidden from the prophets. The whole period between the first and second coming of Christ was completely hidden from them. So no OT prophesy could describe anything during this period. Therefore the destruction of the temple in 70ad must be excluded.

This explains the “Gap” theory in most prophetic writings and was most clearly demonstrated by Christ in Luke 4.18-19:

Luke 4:18-20
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
KJV

He was quoting from Isa 61. but closed the book before he had finished the sentence:

Isaiah 61:2
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God…
KJV

It is obvious that to Isaiah these events are all concurrent and no hint of the church age was ever seen by any OT prophet. John the Baptist was the first to see.

[timspong]

Since this is a key point in your argument, can you walk us through the Scriptures to get us to this conclusion?

Lets look at the “prince to come” as described specifically in Daniel 9:26&27

His people shall:
Destroy the city – ie Jerusalem (that has yet to happen)
Destroy the sanctuary – ie temple (has happened in the past but will also happen in the future)

He will:
Confirm the covenant (to rebuild the temple) with many for 7 years
But after 31/2 years shall cause sacrifices and offerings to cease
At the 31/2 point he will set up in the temple the abomination that causes desolation

Scripture has plenty to say about these events and I have given a small sample below. I will not interject any comments at this point, but please read them and see if they are as obvious to you as they are to me.


Daniel 8:9 & 11 & 17 & 23 -26(NIV)
9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land.
11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.
17 … "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."
23…a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise.
24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people.
25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

2 Th 2:3,4 (WEB)
3Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction,
4he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God. (this is the abomination that causes desolation)

Matthew 24:15 and 29-31 (NIV)
15 "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel-let the reader understand …
29 "Immediately after the distress of those days "`the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

THESE THINGS HAVE DEFINITELY NOT HAPPENED YET!


Some Other Scriptures Detailing 31/2 Years:
(ie half a week, 1260 days or 42 months, ). Also the term ”a time, times and half a time” also describes 31/2 years:

ie a time is one year, times is two years and half a time is half a year = 31/2 years


These verses either describe the first or second half of the missing week.

Revelation 12:6
6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Daniel 12:11 (NIV)
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. (i.e. 31/2 years plus the 30-day intercalary month added)

Revelation 11:2
2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

Revelation 11:3
3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."

Revelation 13:5
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.

Daniel 7:25
25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.

Daniel 12:7
And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Revelation 12:14-16
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

Interestingly this last one uses the same “flood” language as Daniel 9.26

[rhutchin]

...Origen who is infamous for initiating the very dubious allegorical method of biblical interpretation....

I.e. take any verse and you can make it mean anything you want and if you make it mean something that no one has thought of before all the better.

I think you have established a key rule for interpreting the Scriptures --

-- A verse cannot mean anything a person wants it to mean.

Thus, I think we have to have strong evidence from the Scriptures for the meaning that we give to terms. With that in mind, let's look at your comments.

Lets look at the “prince to come” as described specifically in Daniel 9:26&27

His people shall:
Destroy the city – ie Jerusalem (that has yet to happen)
Destroy the sanctuary – ie temple (has happened in the past but will also happen in the future)

He will:
Confirm the covenant (to rebuild the temple) with many for 7 years
But after 31/2 years shall cause sacrifices and offerings to cease
At the 31/2 point he will set up in the temple the abomination that causes desolation

1. You state that the destruction of the temple occurred in the past and is yet to happen in the future. This prophecy does not "automatically" have a second destruction. You "want" a covenant to rebuild the temple in the future where, in Dan 9, such a covenant could have applied to the rebuilding of the temple in the past (to then allow it to be destroyed later as you seem to agree). You have the idea that the temple must be rebuilt and destroyed a second time, but this is not obvious from Daniel 9. It seems to drive you to conclude that the "prince who is to come" must be someone other than the earlier identified "Messiah the prince."

Also, once we get into the NT, Peter identifies believers as the temple of God suggesting a need to distinguish between the temple comprised of believers and a second physical temple.

Regardless, Daniel 9 seems to point to the rebuilding and destruction of one temple while you want it to be two temples. That conclusion depends on the "prince who is to come" being someone other than the earlier identified "Messiah the prince."

So, are you following your rule above or are you forcing something into Daniel 9, that is not there?


2 Th 2:3,4 (WEB)
3Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction,
4he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God. (this is the abomination that causes desolation)

Here, I think is where confusion can occur. Is the "temple of God" in view here the temple of believers (possible consistiing of both wheat and tares since they are allowed to grow together) or is it a physical temple in Jerusalem? While this may be the abomination (you express that conclusion but do not show how you get to that conclusion), it could be that this abomination takes control of the "church" or perhaps resides in a temple in Jerusalem and has nothing to do with the true church. You would need to sort this out. If this abomination sits in Jerusalem pesiding over the cult religion of the Jews, who cares?


Some Other Scriptures Detailing 31/2 Years:
(ie half a week, 1260 days or 42 months, ). Also the term ”a time, times and half a time” also describes 31/2 years:

ie a time is one year, times is two years and half a time is half a year = 31/2 years

These verses either describe the first or second half of the missing week.

Revelation 12:6
6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Revelation 11:2
2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

Revelation 11:3
3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."

Revelation 13:5
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.

Daniel 7:25
25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.

Daniel 12:7
And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Revelation 12:14-16
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

Interestingly this last one uses the same “flood” language as Daniel 9.26

I agree that all these are related.


Daniel 12:11 (NIV)
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. (i.e. 31/2 years plus the 30-day intercalary month added)

You seem to be forcing a conclusion that is not warranted. Where in the Bible did you get the "30-day intercalary month"?

[TyRockwell]

Daniel 9:26 The "prince who is to come" is not the subject of the sentence. It is "the people." They destroyed the city and the sanctuary, 66-70 A.D. The "prince" was the principality, just as the Prince of Persia was in Dan. 10. The "he" of verse 27 refers to the Messiah, who confirmed THE covenant, putting an end to sacrifice for sins, by the sacrifice of himself, making all subsequent temple sacrifices abominable, and therefore the 'end' that was decreed, the "desolations are decreed" of verse 26, was the detruction of the desolate temple in 70 A.D.

[rhutchin]

Daniel 9:26 The "prince who is to come" is not the subject of the sentence. It is "the people." They destroyed the city and the sanctuary, 66-70 A.D. The "prince" was the principality, just as the Prince of Persia was in Dan. 10. The "he" of verse 27 refers to the Messiah, who confirmed THE covenant, putting an end to sacrifice for sins, by the sacrifice of himself, making all subsequent temple sacrifices abominable, and therefore the 'end' that was decreed, the "desolations are decreed" of verse 26, was the detruction of the desolate temple in 70 A.D.

That is what timspong is arguing against.

[TyRockwell]

The reason that "the prince" in Dan. 9: 26 is a lower case 'p' and the Prince of chapter 10 is a capital P is the time frame. The prince of 9:26 had been an upper case Prince before the cross; afterward it had lost its dominion, and was slain and thrown into the blazing fire, Dan. 7: 11. Therefore it was the Roman people sans principality, (Prince of Rome, Prince of Persia, Prince of Greece) that was destroying the city and temple, as the Roman Empire began its fall.

[rhutchin]

The reason that "the prince" in Dan. 9: 26 is a lower case 'p' and the Prince of chapter 10 is a capital P is the time frame. The prince of 9:26 had been an upper case Prince before the cross; afterward it had lost its dominion, and was slain and thrown into the blazing fire, Dan. 7: 11. Therefore it was the Roman people sans principality, (Prince of Rome, Prince of Persia, Prince of Greece) that was destroying the city and temple, as the Roman Empire began its fall.

Sounds very imaginative to me.

I'd rather see a justification for lower case "p" verses uper case "P" draw upon the Hebrew text and the context in which it appears.

However, it seems that you are arguing a third intepretation for the "prince who is to come."

[TyRockwell]

The justification for the lower case:It is a different word than the capital P Prince. According to the Hebrew dictionary, the lower case "p" is defined as "a ruler on the front lines of a battle,"and is not as high an order a prince as the capital P Prince, which is defined as a ruler with a dominion.
After Jesus triumphed in the belly of the earth, He took the keys of death, hell, and the grave, and arose with ALL authority, in heaven and on earth. The Principality of Rome had been conquered and no longer had any authority, no dominion, hence it was subjugated to a position of a ruler on the frontlines of the battle, as all other principalities are now, since Jesus has all authority, dominion, and a name that is above every name. In addition, the Dan.7: 11, judgment happened when Jesus was led into the presence of the Ancient of Days, and that prince was slain and its body thrown into the blazing fire. It'shis ascension with the clouds, not the Second Coming, "as you have seen him go."

[timspong]

I think you have established a key rule for interpreting the Scriptures --

-- A verse cannot mean anything a person wants it to mean.

Thus, I think we have to have strong evidence from the Scriptures for the meaning that we give to terms. With that in mind, let's look at your comments.



1. You state that the destruction of the temple occurred in the past and is yet to happen in the future. This prophecy does not "automatically" have a second destruction. You "want" a covenant to rebuild the temple in the future where, in Dan 9, such a covenant could have applied to the rebuilding of the temple in the past (to then allow it to be destroyed later as you seem to agree). You have the idea that the temple must be rebuilt and destroyed a second time, but this is not obvious from Daniel 9. It seems to drive you to conclude that the "prince who is to come" must be someone other than the earlier identified "Messiah the prince."

Also, once we get into the NT, Peter identifies believers as the temple of God suggesting a need to distinguish between the temple comprised of believers and a second physical temple.

Regardless, Daniel 9 seems to point to the rebuilding and destruction of one temple while you want it to be two temples. That conclusion depends on the "prince who is to come" being someone other than the earlier identified "Messiah the prince."

So, are you following your rule above or are you forcing something into Daniel 9, that is not there?



Here, I think is where confusion can occur. Is the "temple of God" in view here the temple of believers (possible consistiing of both wheat and tares since they are allowed to grow together) or is it a physical temple in Jerusalem? While this may be the abomination (you express that conclusion but do not show how you get to that conclusion), it could be that this abomination takes control of the "church" or perhaps resides in a temple in Jerusalem and has nothing to do with the true church. You would need to sort this out. If this abomination sits in Jerusalem pesiding over the cult religion of the Jews, who cares?



I agree that all these are related.



You seem to be forcing a conclusion that is not warranted. Where in the Bible did you get the "30-day intercalary month"?


Sorry for the confusion but, the prophesy refers to the future destruction of the temple only. I merely sated for the record that it had also happened before (on more than one occation).

If there is to be no other temple to be built, how do explain the temple that Ezekiel take 8 full chapters to describe every last detail of? It is clear that this was not the temple that was destroyed in 70ad. The dimensions are completely different. The language is also very “physical” and does not lend itself at all to allegory.

It is a well known fact that plans have already been drawn up by the Israeli’s to build the third temple and it could be easy finished in a relatively short time. Eschatolological symbolism predicts that the little horn (dan 7) will rise up as the head of a nation (probably in the middle east) will form a 10 nation confederacy (10 horns), bring peace to the area and allow Israel to built its third temple. Then after 3.5 years the little horn will set up his on image in the temple in an attempt to exalt himself above God etc etc.

Regarding the temple of God language:
There is a huge amount left to be done with Israel as distinct from gentile believers. That is where the new temple will come into play, it has little to do with us as gentile Christians. Israelology is a huge subject that must proceed a thorough understanding of eschatology IMO.

As for the intercalary month, that is the traditional method used to align the Jewish lunar calendar with the solar calendar. It would explain the extra 30days although the bible is not specific, I thought it worth including that verse as relevant.

[rhutchin]

If there is to be no other temple to be built, how do explain the temple that Ezekiel take 8 full chapters to describe every last detail of? It is clear that this was not the temple that was destroyed in 70ad. The dimensions are completely different. The language is also very “physical” and does not lend itself at all to allegory.

Ezekiel writes during the 70 year period during which Israel was in captivity in Babylon. I think that it might be argued that the vision of the temple could refer to the temple that was rebuilt when the Jews returned to Israel and subsequently destroyed in 70 AD. However, there is language about the worship of God and this calls to mind the complementary notions of a physical building identified with the church and the spiritual body of Christ that cannot be confined in a physical building. None of the prophecies are simple and none seem to be innocent of innuendo concerning Christ and the church. It is easy to casually refer to Ezekiel but more difficult to get into the nitty-gritty of Ezekiel and discern what God meant in giving this particular vision to us.


It is a well known fact that plans have already been drawn up by the Israeli’s to build the third temple and it could be easy finished in a relatively short time.

Israel did not recognize the Christ when He lived among them and rejected Him as their Messiah. We have good reason to be suspect about their plans for a new temple given that the Jewish religion, because of its rejection of Christ, has become a cult. There is a fascination with Israel by many (recognizing that there are a lot of verses that can be read favoring this view), but that facination seems to approach the level of cultic worship (but that's my opinion).


Eschatolological symbolism predicts that the little horn (dan 7) will rise up as the head of a nation (probably in the middle east) will form a 10 nation confederacy (10 horns), bring peace to the area and allow Israel to built its third temple. Then after 3.5 years the little horn will set up his on image in the temple in an attempt to exalt himself above God etc etc.

Regarding the temple of God language:
There is a huge amount left to be done with Israel as distinct from gentile believers. That is where the new temple will come into play, it has little to do with us as gentile Christians. Israelology is a huge subject that must proceed a thorough understanding of eschatology IMO.

Difficult language that engenders many interpretations. The trick seems to be to keep to your rule and keep one's imagination from running wild.


As for the intercalary month, that is the traditional method used to align the Jewish lunar calendar with the solar calendar. It would explain the extra 30days although the bible is not specific, I thought it worth including that verse as relevant.

Absent the Bible telling us to use this particular method, I would continue to look for the Bible to provide another method to reach the 1290 figure. I think you have taken the easy way out, and maybe because it supports the conclusion you want to reach.

[rhutchin]

The justification for the lower case:It is a different word than the capital P Prince. According to the Hebrew dictionary, the lower case "p" is defined as "a ruler on the front lines of a battle,"and is not as high an order a prince as the capital P Prince, which is defined as a ruler with a dominion.

That is all well and good.

In Daniel 9, the term, "Messiah the prince," in v25 and the "prince who is to come" use the same Hebrew word that is translated as "prince." Should we not assume, then, that the identification of Messiah as a prince in v25 should lead us to identify the "prince" who is to come in v26 also as the Messiah? There seems to be no reason, based on the use of the same Hebrew word, to think that a different person is in view in v26 than that person first identified in v25.


After Jesus triumphed in the belly of the earth, He took the keys of death, hell, and the grave, and arose with ALL authority, in heaven and on earth. The Principality of Rome had been conquered and no longer had any authority, no dominion, hence it was subjugated to a position of a ruler on the frontlines of the battle, as all other principalities are now, since Jesus has all authority, dominion, and a name that is above every name. In addition, the Dan.7: 11, judgment happened when Jesus was led into the presence of the Ancient of Days, and that prince was slain and its body thrown into the blazing fire. It'shis ascension with the clouds, not the Second Coming, "as you have seen him go."

OK. I would equate the "Principality of Rome" with the dominion of Satan as Satan was conquered and his reign (but not his influence over men) on earth ended at that time.

[TyRockwell]

That is all well and good.

In Daniel 9, the term, "Messiah the prince," in v25 and the "prince who is to come" use the same Hebrew word that is translated as "prince." Should we not assume, then, that the identification of Messiah as a prince in v25 should lead us to identify the "prince" who is to come in v26 also as the Messiah? There seems to be no reason, based on the use of the same Hebrew word, to think that a different person is in view in v26 than that person first identified in v25.



OK. I would equate the "Principality of Rome" with the dominion of Satan as Satan was conquered and his reign (but not his influence over men) on earth ended at that time.

A principality is a demonic, territorial spirit over a region, people or government.

[TyRockwell]

At the time that Messiah the prince first came, he was in old covenant human mode, not haven yet conquered Satan or the other principalities.

[TyRockwell]

rhutchin, would you like to discuss this in real time?

[TyRockwell]

I'm not sure how to do so, or how to 'hail' or call you.

[TyRockwell]

The difference in the prince of verse 26 from the prince in verse 25, is that Messiah was the subject of verse 25, while "the people" is the subject of verse 26.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin, would you like to discuss this in real time?

I cannot do this in real time, because I need to do research on the points you make. That takes time.

[rhutchin]

The difference in the prince of verse 26 from the prince in verse 25, is that Messiah was the subject of verse 25, while "the people" is the subject of verse 26.

I don't see that as making a distinction between the two. The common link between the two is the Hebrew word translated as "prince." Messiah is identified as the prince. The people are identified with the prince. The Hebrew word says that it is the same prince.

Is there a reason why you think the use of "Messiah" and "the people" as subjects of two statements means something in this case?

[rhutchin]

A principality is a demonic, territorial spirit over a region, people or government.

Over whom Christ rules.


9 For in [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
14 ...And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

[timspong]

Ezekiel writes during the 70 year period during which Israel was in captivity in Babylon. I think that it might be argued that the vision of the temple could refer to the temple that was rebuilt when the Jews returned to Israel and subsequently destroyed in 70 AD. However, there is language about the worship of God and this calls to mind the complementary notions of a physical building identified with the church and the spiritual body of Christ that cannot be confined in a physical building. None of the prophecies are simple and none seem to be innocent of innuendo concerning Christ and the church. It is easy to casually refer to Ezekiel but more difficult to get into the nitty-gritty of Ezekiel and discern what God meant in giving this particular vision to us.

I have studied Ezekiel fairly well and can conclude quite confidently that the temple as described in Ezekiel must be a physical entity as opposed to an allegorized spiritual one.


Israel did not recognize the Christ when He lived among them and rejected Him as their Messiah. We have good reason to be suspect about their plans for a new temple given that the Jewish religion, because of its rejection of Christ, has become a cult. There is a fascination with Israel by many (recognizing that there are a lot of verses that can be read favoring this view), but that facination seems to approach the level of cultic worship (but that's my opinion).


The bible has much to say about the ‘blinding’ and ‘falling away’ of Israel and how we must avoid boasting against them as they will once again return to God. It is all over the bible, but I think Romans 11 is a very good example.

Romans 11 – (selection)
18 do not boast over those branches…
20 …Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in…
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

Also if you look at Ezekiel’s “Valley of dry bones” in Eze 37. Despite being probably the most grossly misinterpreted chapter in scripture, is all about the restoration of Israel. The bible clearly interprets it for us, although I am sure we have all heard many bogus allegorized sermonic fantasies on the subject.

Ezekiel 37:11-12
11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
KJV

Then immediately following that he talks about the two sticks and how the bible interprets it to mean that Judah and Israel will once again be joined as one nation in the promised land (as per Ephraim's birth rite - Gen 48). Also remember that the Jews in Israel now are just the southern tribes of Judah (Jews = judahites = southern kingdom only) and the northern tribes have never been re-gathered since the Assyrian captivity.

Ezekiel 37:19-28
19 say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph-which is in Ephraim's hand-and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.'
20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on
21 and say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land.
22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.
23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
24 "`My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.
25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.
26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.
27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.
28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.'"




Difficult language that engenders many interpretations. The trick seems to be to keep to your rule and keep one's imagination from running wild.

Actually I find symbolism in the OT prophets and revelation to be remarkably consistent and unambiguous. In fact most symbolism is interpreted for us somewhere, so there is in fact a lot less conjecture to my statements than you might think.


Absent the Bible telling us to use this particular method, I would continue to look for the Bible to provide another method to reach the 1290 figure. I think you have taken the easy way out, and maybe because it supports the conclusion you want to reach.
I don’t see reason to argue this point, please feel free to strike this verse from the discussion if you have reservations about my handling of it.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Ezekiel writes during the 70 year period during which Israel was in captivity in Babylon. I think that it might be argued that the vision of the temple could refer to the temple that was rebuilt when the Jews returned to Israel and subsequently destroyed in 70 AD. However, there is language about the worship of God and this calls to mind the complementary notions of a physical building identified with the church and the spiritual body of Christ that cannot be confined in a physical building. None of the prophecies are simple and none seem to be innocent of innuendo concerning Christ and the church. It is easy to casually refer to Ezekiel but more difficult to get into the nitty-gritty of Ezekiel and discern what God meant in giving this particular vision to us.

timspong
I have studied Ezekiel fairly well and can conclude quite confidently that the temple as described in Ezekiel must be a physical entity as opposed to an allegorized spiritual one.

I have studied Ezekiel very little. So, what would I read in Ezekiel that points to a construction of the temple after that construction that occurs following the return of Israel after the seventy years in Babylon and destruction in 70 AD.


rhutchin
The bible has much to say about the ‘blinding’ and ‘falling away’ of Israel and how we must avoid boasting against them as they will once again return to God. It is all over the bible, but I think Romans 11 is a very good example.

Romans 11 – (selection)
18 do not boast over those branches…
20 …Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in…
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

I think Romans is biased by this--


6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,...
8 ...but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Thus, when Paul refers to "Israel," the presumption ought to be that he is referring to the church and not to the physical nation of Israel. Thus, when he says, "...so all Israel will be saved...," I see him referring to the church and not to a physical nation. Even if we were to take it to be physical Israel, it would still seem to be just a remnant (i.e., the children of promise) and not every Israelite.


Also if you look at Ezekiel’s “Valley of dry bones” in Eze 37. Despite being probably the most grossly misinterpreted chapter in scripture, is all about the restoration of Israel. The bible clearly interprets it for us, although I am sure we have all heard many bogus allegorized sermonic fantasies on the subject.

Ezekiel 37:11-12
11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
KJV

Then immediately following that he talks about the two sticks and how the bible interprets it to mean that Judah and Israel will once again be joined as one nation in the promised land (as per Ephraim's birth rite - Gen 48). Also remember that the Jews in Israel now are just the southern tribes of Judah (Jews = judahites = southern kingdom only) and the northern tribes have never been re-gathered since the Assyrian captivity.

Ezekiel 37:19-28
19 say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph-which is in Ephraim's hand-and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.'
20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on
21 and say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land.
22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.
23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
24 "`My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.
25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.
26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.
27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.
28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.'"

Obviously, there is much symbolic in these verses. The David who is to be king would seem to be Christ and not the original David come back to life. The people do not come out of their graves to populate a physical nation and this can refer to the church. I find it confusing and have not spent much time on it.

[timspong]

I have studied Ezekiel very little. So, what would I read in Ezekiel that points to a construction of the temple after that construction that occurs following the return of Israel after the seventy years in Babylon and destruction in 70 AD.

Once you study it that option disappears as the physical dimensions and exact location or rather the terrain it is built on is totally different. If you are interested you can always google it, as there is tons of info out there already written.




Thus, when Paul refers to "Israel," the presumption ought to be that he is referring to the church and not to the physical nation of Israel. Thus, when he says, "...so all Israel will be saved...," I see him referring to the church and not to a physical nation. Even if we were to take it to be physical Israel, it would still seem to be just a remnant (i.e., the children of promise) and not every Israelite.


This is a classic verse used by the church replacement theorists, also please note that the terms “true Israel” and “spiritual Israel” do not appear anywhere in the bible and therefore have no biblical definition.

Ro 9.6 …For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

He is NOT saying:
They are not all “spiritual/true Israel” who are of National Israel
Or
They are not all National Israel who are “spiritual/true Israel”

If you put it in context Paul is saying

For they are not all Israel, which are of Jacob.

I will take out the verse number, so it flows better.

…For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

He is narrowing the field not expanding it. He is saying that not all descendents of Abraham, Issac and Jacob are of the blessed linage. He is whittling down the seed of each generation until it leads to Christ.

I.e. the pretext of the verse in question is:
Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,

For further clarification:

Galatians 3:16 & 19
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed , which is Christ.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


Obviously, there is much symbolic in these verses. The David who is to be king would seem to be Christ and not the original David come back to life. The people do not come out of their graves to populate a physical nation and this can refer to the church. I find it confusing and have not spent much time on it.

The people actually do come out of their graves to populate a physical nation (including David). It is called the millennial reign of Christ.


I know that partial preterism and church replacement theology is the fad “consumer” version of eschatology but it doesn’t mean to say it is right. It just doesn’t stand up to biblical scrutiny and you miss out on a awful lot of rich edifying prophetic connections if you don’t know your Israelology and eschatology.

For example:
If the church is now Israel, how in the world to you allegorize this?:

Romans 11: 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Thus, when Paul refers to "Israel," the presumption ought to be that he is referring to the church and not to the physical nation of Israel. Thus, when he says, "...so all Israel will be saved...," I see him referring to the church and not to a physical nation. Even if we were to take it to be physical Israel, it would still seem to be just a remnant (i.e., the children of promise) and not every Israelite.

timspong
This is a classic verse used by the church replacement theorists, also please note that the terms “true Israel” and “spiritual Israel” do not appear anywhere in the bible and therefore have no biblical definition.

Ro 9.6 …For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

He is NOT saying:
They are not all “spiritual/true Israel” who are of National Israel
Or
They are not all National Israel who are “spiritual/true Israel”

If you put it in context Paul is saying

For they are not all Israel, which are of Jacob.

I will take out the verse number, so it flows better.

…For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

He is narrowing the field not expanding it. He is saying that not all descendents of Abraham, Issac and Jacob are of the blessed linage. He is whittling down the seed of each generation until it leads to Christ.

I.e. the pretext of the verse in question is:
Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,

For further clarification:

Galatians 3:16& 19
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed , which is Christ.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

In Galatians 3, Paul is very explicit in saying "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." There is no mistaking Paul's focus on Christ.

In Romans, Paul says, "..., in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed," where he makes clear that it is the "children of promise" that are the seed. He is not referring to Christ here. He is referring to God's choosing people to save.

Paul's point is that God has said that Israel will be saved and the Israel that will be saved consists not of the physical descendants of Abraham but of those chosen by God. Thus, not all those who pridefully call themselves Israel are included among those called Israel (and saved) by God. Paul is narrowing the field but not down to Christ -- to the remnant.

But, we will just disagree on this point.


rhutchin
Obviously, there is much symbolic in these verses. The David who is to be king would seem to be Christ and not the original David come back to life. The people do not come out of their graves to populate a physical nation and this can refer to the church. I find it confusing and have not spent much time on it.

timspong
The people actually do come out of their graves to populate a physical nation (including David). It is called the millennial reign of Christ.

You are putting the temple described by Ezekiel into the millennial reign of Christ, are you not?

That would basically make Ezekiel worthless to anyone other than those who are resurrected to be part of the millennial period.


I know that partial preterism and church replacement theology is the fad “consumer” version of eschatology but it doesn’t mean to say it is right. It just doesn’t stand up to biblical scrutiny and you miss out on a awful lot of rich edifying prophetic connections if you don’t know your Israelology and eschatology.

For example:
If the church is now Israel, how in the world to you allegorize this?:

Romans 11: 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

The need here is to identify the "they" referred to by Paul. In context, we have,


11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people?...
2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
5 ...there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
7 ...Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
13 For I speak to you Gentiles;...
15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

So, the "they" in v28 consists of God's people in the physical nation of Israel. It is the remnant that is to be saved. All Israel was broken off when the Jews (on behalf of all Jews including the remnant) declared before Pilate that they had no king but Caesar. They became the enemies of Christ. Thus, the gospel, rejectd by the Jews, was now given to the gentiles. However, God then began to draw this remnant to Him beginning on Pentecost when a great number were saved.

We read the verse, "Concerning the gospel [the remnant according to the election of grace] are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [the remnant according to the election of grace] are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

[TyRockwell]

I don't see that as making a distinction between the two. The common link between the two is the Hebrew word translated as "prince." Messiah is identified as the prince. The people are identified with the prince. The Hebrew word says that it is the same prince.

Is there a reason why you think the use of "Messiah" and "the people" as subjects of two statements means something in this case?
Yes, It is very important to see that verse 26 is not a continuation of the list of things in verses 24, 25, and the first part of verse 26 up to "the people." Its like The sentenc starting with "The people " is parenthetical, and the peoples actions are mentioned. The the list begins again in verse 27 with He being Messiah throgh to the end that is decreed "poured out on the desolate temple.

[TyRockwell]

In addition Jesus only could be said to have destroyed the temple figuratively. He was seated at the Father's right hand, "waiting for His enemies to be made his footstool," (which is the most repeated verse in the Bible, twice in the gospels, two times in Acts and twice in Hebrews and partially referenced in some of the epistles). Although it is He who "decreed desolations," KJV is "desolations are decreed," in verse 26. There is more than one prince. Here, in verse 26, the prince is the deposed pricipality of Rome; deposed by Jesus' being given or taking "all dominion in heaven and on earth, Matt. 28: 18. The prince of verse 26 is not the active entity of the action. The action of destroying was done by "the people." The prince of Rome had been slain and its body thrown into the blazing fire (Dan.7: 11) at the point in time of "the people's" action. The prince of Rome was not even alive to initiate the action. It was "the people."
A lot of confusion on this point has come about by the wrong useage of the phrase, "the prince of the people." I know these things to be true due to the recent unsealing of Daniel, see Dan.12: 4 Unless one is wiling to see another interpretation, there will be an inability to see it. So many conflicting doctrines of the end times has come about because interpretors did not wait for and look for, Daniel's unsealing about 13 years ago, in 1994, 2000 years after Jesus' birth. I am starting a new thread called the Recent Unsealing of Daniel. I hope you, and others will be willing to participate.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I don't see that as making a distinction between the two. The common link between the two is the Hebrew word translated as "prince." Messiah is identified as the prince. The people are identified with the prince. The Hebrew word says that it is the same prince.

Is there a reason why you think the use of "Messiah" and "the people" as subjects of two statements means something in this case?

TyRockwell
Yes, It is very important to see that verse 26 is not a continuation of the list of things in verses 24, 25, and the first part of verse 26 up to "the people." Its like The sentence starting with "The people " is parenthetical, and the peoples actions are mentioned. The the list begins again in verse 27 with He being Messiah through to the end that is decreed "poured out on the desolate temple.

OK, we would read it this way according to you.


25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; (And [in 70 AD] the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.)
27 Then [Messiah] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

I have several problems accepting this.

1. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us to make v26 a parenthesis. Had you not known of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, you would not feel compelled to force this outcome. What you seem to mean is that the Bible cannot be understood unless we add certain historical events not recorded by God in the Bible and use these events to understand the Bible.

2. When Daniel writes "he" in v 27, he must refer to the most recent antecendent which would be the "prince" indentified with the "people of the prince." Since you want to go back to the Messiah, this also forces you to make v26 a parenthesis. Consequently, you are forcing the Bible to say what you want it to say and not letting it tell you what it wants you to know.

3. Daniel uses time markers in v27, "Then...one week...middle of the week...Even until.... Absent your parenthetical, these time markers would follow onto v26. We also read that in the middle of the week, "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." If "He" is Christ then this occurred on the cross when the veil in the temple was torn in two.

The upshot of all this is that you need a rationale for making v26 parenthetical and I think this rationale needs to be more than "I need to make Daniel fit what I read in my history book."

[TyRockwell]

OK, we would read it this way according to you.


25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; (And [in 70 AD] the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.)
27 Then [Messiah] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

I have several problems accepting this.

1. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us to make v26 a parenthesis. Had you not known of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, you would not feel compelled to force this outcome. What you seem to mean is that the Bible cannot be understood unless we add certain historical events not recorded by God in the Bible and use these events to understand the Bible.

2. When Daniel writes "he" in v 27, he must refer to the most recent antecendent which would be the "prince" indentified with the "people of the prince." Since you want to go back to the Messiah, this also forces you to make v26 a parenthesis. Consequently, you are forcing the Bible to say what you want it to say and not letting it tell you what it wants you to know.

3. Daniel uses time markers in v27, "Then...one week...middle of the week...Even until.... Absent your parenthetical, these time markers would follow onto v26. We also read that in the middle of the week, "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." If "He" is Christ then this occurred on the cross when the veil in the temple was torn in two.

The upshot of all this is that you need a rationale for making v26 parenthetical and I think this rationale needs to be more than "I need to make Daniel fit what I read in my history book."
There is more than history, but history is not excluded. The proof of prophecy is that it comes to pass. But as to your first point, I don't think that you absolutely have to have historical data to know God's word will come to pass. That said, you still keep focusing on "the prince" not " the people". They took their action after Messiah was "cut off." I've heard that some don't see "cut off" as crucified, but neither do they see Jesus in Isaiah 53, either where he was clearly "cut off for the sins of his people," see Isaiah 53: 8. He was cut off, but he had also said that the jews would not see him again until they say, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." i.e. he didn't operate out in the open after his resurrection. The fact that he was not openly acting excludes him from being the "prince who is to come," the prince whose people would destroy even in the absence of the principality they no longer had. Have you yet considered what the ramifications are, if the prince of Rome, after the cross, was slain, and thrown into hell, before the people destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple? His people did so, not Messiah's people. They fled to the mountains, as he had told them to do. Matt. 24: 16 As to your second point, the previous antecedant to the "he" of verse 27, is not the prince of Rome, but the one who decreed desolations, Jesus himself. Matt. 23: 38 he said, "Behold your house is left to you desolate!" That was the first decree. A few verse later, in 24: 2, he stated, "Not one stone will be left standing on another." That was the second decree. Then your 3rd point. The he" of verse 27, is Christ who Confirmed THE Covenant. Not a peace treaty. Those who claim it is a peace treaty don't see it bthat way in chapter 11, verse 32, when The old covenant is mentioned. He fulfilled it. Same word as when he said, "I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to confirm, or fulfill them." Same word. This confirming of the old covenant took place after his three and a half year ministry, into half of the seventieth week of Daniel that began with,"After the sixty-two weeks," (which were after the seven weeks). Another point, the old covenant was confirmed not on the cross, but at his resurrection, three days and three nights later.

[jesterbr549]

OK. Do you have an argument for not reading the passage consistently throughout. When the passage uses the term, "messiah the prince," should we not read further occurances of the word, "prince," to mean the Messiah unless something in the context tells us to look for a different prince?

It seems to be that you have first decided that the "people of the prince" ought to be Rome when the Biblical context would identify them as the Jews. How do you introduce the Roman army based on what we read within the Scriptures?

He provided you with the argument.

The People of the Prince who shall come shall destroy the Temple.

Did the Jews destroy the Temple?

NO.

Therefore, the People were the Romans and their Prince will be the Antichrist.

For someone who said the Jews destroyed their own temple cause of their sins you then have to address the Prophecies that talk about vengeance on Babylon for the destruction of the Temple on those two occasions - the first as the Babylonian's proper and the second as the Romans.

[jesterbr549]

I don't see that as making a distinction between the two. The common link between the two is the Hebrew word translated as "prince." Messiah is identified as the prince. The people are identified with the prince. The Hebrew word says that it is the same prince.

Is there a reason why you think the use of "Messiah" and "the people" as subjects of two statements means something in this case?

Your argument that because a Title - Prince - is used twice that it must be the same prince is an assumption that may, or may not, be correct and that is because you ignore the qualifying word Messiah for the first Prince which is not given to the second prince.

This can actually be shown in the verse itself where the Messiah Prince is cut off and now you are saying - in the very next sentance - that the Messiah Prince has not yet arrived.

[TyRockwell]

Your argument that because a Title - Prince - is used twice that it must be the same prince is an assumption that may, or may not, be correct and that is because you ignore the qualifying word Messiah for the first Prince which is not given to the second prince.

This can actually be shown in the verse itself where the Messiah Prince is cut off and now you are saying - in the very next sentance - that the Messiah Prince has not yet arrived.
Thank you, jesterbr549, for affirming the point I was making in post #48. rhutchin made my point without seeing how he did so in his post, #40, when he quoted,"having destroyed principalities and powers, he put them to shame triumphing over them." I was trying to say that this triumph that he himself referenced happened in Dan. 9 25, and verse 27. Jesus was cut off in verse 25, meaning he was crucified, just as Isaiah 53:8 said, "he was cut off for the sins of his people." In his crucifixion and resurrection, he also confirmed the old covenant, and put an end to sacrifice in verse 27. Daniel had been praying for the city, Jerusalem, his people, Israel, and the temple. All three came to an end in 70 A.D. God had promised that Israel would never cease to be a nation before Him. Note, God said, 'nation.' He did not say that they would never cease to be His people. Indeed, as God had showed Hosea, whom God told to name a child, "Not My People," in Hosea 1:9 they had already ceased to be his people, leading to the Babylonian captivity. But he also said that he would take them back, and "it would be as though I had not rejected them." Zech.10:6
The Daniel 9 message from Gabriel first spoke of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnessar's army in 586 B.C. History, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell us that Cyrus, king of Persia issued that decree in the first year of his reign. In Daniel 10, He is praying again, and it is the third year of Cyrus' reign, and Daniel knows that the decree had been made in Cyrus' first year. The importance of this is that it happened, and some interpreters of prophecy expect that a future 'antichrist' will issue that decree. It will not happen. There are no more principalities that have the level of authority of a capital "P" Prince, like the "P"rince (Hebrew='sar') of Persia. (the KJV wrongly capitalized the prince, of "Messiah the prince," it was the lower case 'p' prince, in Hebrew, it is 'nagiyd'.) Nor can even Satan himself muster such dominion, for "all dominion has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore..." We who are the church, have been given Jesus' own authority to exercise dominion over the remaining principalities, powers, rulers of spiritual forces of evil in high places, in the heavenlies, meaning the invisible realm. Ephesians 6:12 Even in the reference in Rev. 13: 3-8, take note, it is the dragon, Satan, who is giving supposedly so much power to the beast, but Satan has no such authority, and it is up to us to call his bluff and stand against him in spiritual warfare.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I don't see that as making a distinction between the two. The common link between the two is the Hebrew word translated as "prince." Messiah is identified as the prince. The people are identified with the prince. The Hebrew word says that it is the same prince.

Is there a reason why you think the use of "Messiah" and "the people" as subjects of two statements means something in this case?

jesterbr549
Your argument that because a Title - Prince - is used twice that it must be the same prince is an assumption that may, or may not, be correct and that is because you ignore the qualifying word Messiah for the first Prince which is not given to the second prince.

Certainly, God has inspired the writer to identify the Messiah as the prince. God must have had a rationale for doing that. The second use of "prince" then calls for an antecedent identification of that second "prince." If the second instance of "prince" does not refer to the earlier Messiah, then to what in the Bible does it refer? I do not think that God would refer to a second "prince" without also telling us the identity of that prince. How do you determine the identity of the prince otherwise?


This can actually be shown in the verse itself where the Messiah Prince is cut off and now you are saying - in the very next sentance - that the Messiah Prince has not yet arrived.

We have--


25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

v25. Command to rebuild until the Messiah is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks
v26. After 62 weeks, Messiah (Christ) is to be cut off (crucified).
It is the people of the prince (the Jews who will kill the Messiah.
v27. Then (at that time) the Messiah who confirm a covenant for one week.
In the middle of the week, Messiah will be crucified.

v26 tells of events that are to happen after the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
v27 provides more detail about that time period.

If you read it another way, maybe you can explain how you arrive at your understanding.

[TyRockwell]

You said the people of the prince were the people who killed him, the Messiah. But they were not his people. Jesus' people were the 'called out' his church, his followers did not desroy Jerusalem or the Temple. The Jews, who rejected Jesus were not his people.

[rhutchin]

You said the people of the prince were the people who killed him, the Messiah. But they were not his people. Jesus' people were the 'called out' his church, his followers did not desroy Jerusalem or the Temple. The Jews, who rejected Jesus were not his people.

If we understand God to be identifying the "prince" of v26 (the people of the prince) to be the same prince as in v 25 (Messiah the prince), then it is the people of the prince who kill the Messiah. This allows for those people to be the Jews.

In response to Pilate we find this, "Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying,'Are You the King of the Jews?' So Jesus said to him, 'It is as you say.'" Here Jesus appears to idenitfy Himself with the Jews and even to be their king (prince?).

So, I don't think that we can say that the Jews, who rejected Jesus, were not his people so long as Jesus identifies Himself with them.

[TyRockwell]

If we understand God to be identifying the "prince" of v26 (the people of the prince) to be the same prince as in v 25 (Messiah the prince), then it is the people of the prince who kill the Messiah. This allows for those people to be the Jews.

In response to Pilate we find this, "Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying,'Are You the King of the Jews?' So Jesus said to him, 'It is as you say.'" Here Jesus appears to idenitfy Himself with the Jews and even to be their king (prince?).

So, I don't think that we can say that the Jews, who rejected Jesus, were not his people so long as Jesus identifies Himself with them.
John, who was the eyewitness when Jesus was before Pilate in 18:36, Qoutes Jesus saying "My kingdom is not of this world. If it was of this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this world, (AMP) He is making a distinction between his followers and the Jews, who were not his people.

[jesterbr549]

In his crucifixion and resurrection, he also confirmed the old covenant, and put an end to sacrifice in verse 27.

Only temporarily - "one jot and one tiddle shall in no wise pass from the law until all is fulfilled" - all is not fulfilled.

All three came to an end in 70 A.D.

No, all three were destroyed in 70 AD in accordance with the postponement of the Kingdom per the parables that Y'shua himself presented to the nation for their rejection of him as their Messiah.

Note, God said, 'nation.' He did not say that they would never cease to be His people. Indeed, as God had showed Hosea, whom God told to name a child, "Not My People," in Hosea 1:9 they had already ceased to be his people, leading to the Babylonian captivity. But he also said that he would take them back, and "it would be as though I had not rejected them." Zech.10:6

The passage you are referring to is specifically the Northern Nation who was 'divored' but it does not apply to the southern nation of Judah who were not 'divored'.


The Daniel 9 message from Gabriel first spoke of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnessar's army in 586 B.C. History, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell us that Cyrus, king of Persia issued that decree in the first year of his reign. In Daniel 10, He is praying again, and it is the third year of Cyrus' reign, and Daniel knows that the decree had been made in Cyrus' first year.

Nehemiah was not a contemporary of Ezra but followed 70 years later when the decree was given in 442 BC

We who are the church, have been given Jesus' own authority to exercise dominion over the remaining principalities, powers, rulers of spiritual forces of evil in high places, in the heavenlies, meaning the invisible realm.

Only because we have been engrafted into the Northern Nation of Ephraim. Well and good, but I can assure you that Y'shua will return and set up his kingdom on this earth in Israel.

[jesterbr549]

Certainly, God has inspired the writer to identify the Messiah as the prince. God must have had a rationale for doing that. The second use of "prince" then calls for an antecedent identification of that second "prince." If the second instance of "prince" does not refer to the earlier Messiah, then to what in the Bible does it refer? I do not think that God would refer to a second "prince" without also telling us the identity of that prince. How do you determine the identity of the prince otherwise?

If you read it another way, maybe you can explain how you arrive at your understanding.

"The prince who shall come" - future tense from when the Messiah Prince was cut off.

[jesterbr549]

You said the people of the prince were the people who killed him, the Messiah. But they were not his people. Jesus' people were the 'called out' his church, his followers did not desroy Jerusalem or the Temple. The Jews, who rejected Jesus were not his people.

Ah, I hate to break this news to ya, but, ah, Y'shua was, you know, Jewish...

[jesterbr549]

If we understand God to be identifying the "prince" of v26 (the people of the prince) to be the same prince as in v 25 (Messiah the prince), then it is the people of the prince who kill the Messiah. This allows for those people to be the Jews.

In response to Pilate we find this, "Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying,'Are You the King of the Jews?' So Jesus said to him, 'It is as you say.'" Here Jesus appears to idenitfy Himself with the Jews and even to be their king (prince?).

So, I don't think that we can say that the Jews, who rejected Jesus, were not his people so long as Jesus identifies Himself with them.

First off, there is no doubt that Y'shua identified with the Jews cause he claimed to be their Messiah and was annointed as such by John the Baptist in the Jordon. The people who put their faith in Y'shua for the first seven years or more of the current dispensation, were almost totally Jewish - "salvation is of the Jews."

They are not, however, the people of the Prince who shall come because that is a person who shall come in the future after the Messiah Prince had been "cut off."

No matter how you look at it, the people - Nation - who destroyed the Temple were the Romans - this is a historical fact and there is no way around it and to deny this is to force an interpretation into a preconceived mold that does not fit the facts.

Therefore the Prince of the Roman Empire is the Antichrist and is certainly not Y'shua who will destroy the Roman Empire at his return.

That Is A Fact...

[jesterbr549]

John, who was the eyewitness when Jesus was before Pilate in 18:36, Qoutes Jesus saying "My kingdom is not of this world. If it was of this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this world, (AMP) He is making a distinction between his followers and the Jews, who were not his people.

No, he was not.

He was making a distinction in time - "Now my Kingdom is not of this world" - strongly implying that at some point in time it would be of this world when he returns and destroys all his enemies.

[TyRockwell]

I see that he was making a distinction between himself and the Jews, whom his followers would fight if his kingdom belonged to (AMP) this world. His followers were his people, distinct from the Jews.

[rhutchin]

They are not, however, the people of the Prince who shall come because that is a person who shall come in the future after the Messiah Prince had been "cut off."

No matter how you look at it, the people - Nation - who destroyed the Temple were the Romans - this is a historical fact and there is no way around it and to deny this is to force an interpretation into a preconceived mold that does not fit the facts.

Therefore the Prince of the Roman Empire is the Antichrist and is certainly not Y'shua who will destroy the Roman Empire at his return.

That Is A Fact...

OK. Can you get the Bible to say it?

If you cannot get the Bible to say it (i.e., God