What does Daniel 9:26 really refer to?

The latter reference to Messiah being cut off was a literal reference. There is no reason to be inconsistent in your heremeneutic. You want some of it literal and some of it not literal. Yet you have no basis other than your system for determining what is what. And that leads to wrong interpretation. Virtually every historian admits there is a precise year value to the weeks.

You miss the point. I am not subscribing to a system with a particular end in mind. I have in fact allowed the text to determine the end. The authorial intent seems clear enough and my system does not require me to violate that to reach an end. I have no problem with the text as it stands because my system does not need another conclusion. In the end, the difference is the hermeneutic that we use.

And that does not equate to error in dispensationalism.

 

Well, let's look at your inconsistency. You have a clear text that says there will be sin offerings in the millennium and you reject that becuase you have a system that won't allow it. Whatever text I may offer will receieve the same response from you because the text is subservient to your views. Why would you ask me for another verse until you accept one that you already know about??? That doesn't even make sense. But it shows the inconsistency. You like Scripture when it supports your point. When it doesn't, you will glibly explain it away. I am not sure that is the best way to go about this.

My point is not to be rude, but to demonstrate that the text is not the basis for your belief. You reject it because you can't see how it works. I accept it and arrange my own system to accommodate what God said.

The bottom line is that when the text says something, that is the end of it. I am required to believe it, not to dispute it.

 

There is no need for a thousand years to be mentioned. I don't understand why that is even an issue.

But funny thing is that is never actually talks about that. There are clear OT passages that talk about Christ and the sacrifice and the language used in Ezek 40-48 does not even remotely resemble that. In fact, if you had not made that statement, there would be nothing in Ezekiel 40-48 to lead one to that conclusion.

I have in fact read Hebrews about 10 times in teh last two weeks. This Sunday will be the first sermon in a series in the book of Hebrews that will last until sometime early next year. You should come ...

The millennial sacrifice is not about "need;" No one is arguing we "need" them. The point is that God stipulated them. He gets to dictate how things go. You have taken a clear text and said it can't possibly mean what it says because of your system. Has it crossed your mind that the God who stipulated millennial sacrifices actually has it all worked out without denying the text?

Then Daniel is a very bad prophet because the events of AD70 do not fit the prophecy that Daniel gave in the least.

That is not under dispute. We agree.

Look again. There is a prince, the Messiah; and a prince who is to come. They are two different people. The prince who is to come with make a covenant with Israel for one week and then will break that covenant in the middle of the week. That cannot be the Messiah since the Messiah will not break his covenant.

But as you rightly pointed out, Christ was not referring to the Herodian temple but to his own body. Furthermore, the temple and the city were not destroyed by Christians in AD70 but by Romans. Clearly, your view doesn't fit the text.

Actually, "It is finished" means that sin has been atoned for.

But as I have pointed out, this has serious problems.

First, the covenant made is broken. Do you really want to argue that Christ breaks his covenant.

Second, the time doesn't work out. Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week. The covenant is made after that and it is broken in the middle of the week.

Third, the covenant in view isn't made by the Messiah but by the prince who is to come.

Your attempt here is a classic example of bringing a position to the text and doing whatever is necessary to make the position work. You have been forced to redefine the text in order to support your view. My view doesn't have to do that.

But when all is said and done, you guys are not prepared to change your view and I have not seen any evidence that is the least bit convincing to me to change my view, so this discussion, as always, will end in a lot of words and no change ... So unless I am extremely provoked, I will bow out

 

Pastor Larry,

I am curious, what city you live? I am live in Wixom near Detroit, MI.

I would like to meet you in a person and discuss about doctrine stuffs.

I am think of going to open new thread discuss on every verse to verse and every chapters of the book of Hebrews. What these are talking about. We should understand what the book of Hebrews talking about. It is very important for us to understand them in Hebrews.

Dispensationalism have much of holes and problems, it have much of conflicts with the Bibele. Not what the Bible saying

You say,

Reject on what??

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

I live in teh downriver area ... River Rouge ...

I agree that Hebrews is very important because it upholds the supremacy of Christ. A thread to discuss every single verse would be very long ...

I would say the same about your position. I think I can defend what I say from Scripture, while refuting what you say from Scripture.

Reject on what?? </font>[/QUOTE]This was in response to Grasshopper's questioning about a text that says millennial sacrifices are memorial or commemorative in nature. He denies the existence of these sacrifices. I was pointing out an inconsistency in his argument. He wants a verse that shows these sacrifices are memorial while rejecting a verse that says they exist. He rejects the verse that declares their existence, not because it isn't clear--it is; he rejects that verse because it does not fit his system.

As I pointed out, I was not trying to be rude or arrogant, and I was attacking him in anyway. I was pointing out an inconsistency in his approach to the topic at hand. To want verses to substantiate the meaning of something while rejecting verses that substantiate the very existence of it is inconsistent. Once he admits that Ezekiel does teach the existence of these sacrifices we can move on to what they mean.

 

All five offerings of the Levitical system are mentioned by name, and they are expressly declared to be for the identical purposes thereof. There is no hint that they were only to be for a "memorial" or "remembrance." That would definitely make Dispensationalists guilty of reading information into the text. They, then, are guilty of utilizing the same harmenuetic of which they accuse their opponents. If we interpret Ezekiel's vision according to Dispensationalists alleged "literal" harmenuetic, the death of Christ is compromised according to Pastor Larry's own words.

[ February 12, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

I guess the answer is NO, you cant find a scripture to prove it.

 

You still haven't accepted the plain declaration of Scripture. Why not? Why not admit that God said there will be sacrifices and then proceed on that basis??

You want to accuse me of not having Scripture (when I can make the case very well); the reality is that at least I accept Scripture. You deny it for some reason. I don't have any idea why.

As I asked, why hasn't it crossed your mind that God does know what he is talking about and you need to rearrange your system to fit his revelation?

God is the one who said there would be sacrifices; dispensationalism didn't say that. Why not believe God on this matter?

 

What??? How did I compromise the death of Christ?? I have affirmed its sufficiency plainly and simply and without qualification. The Bible says that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. So therefore, what the OT sacrifices did, they did not take away sin. So to suggest that bringing them back will somehow compromise the only death that could take away sin is wrong.

If the blood of bulls and goats couldn't take away sin the first time, then how do they compromise the sacrifice that did take away sin?

Even now, we celebrate the Lord's table as a memorial. We do not jeopardize the sufficiency of his sacrifice. We affirm it. To offer a memorial sacrifice in the millennium will not be substantially different.

I ask you what I asked Grasshopper: Why not just believe what God said? Your position requires an out and out denial of the text of Scripture. I realize that is straightforward but give me another option. If it is not a denial then what is it? God said there will be sacrifices; you say there will not be. Why should we believe you?

My position affirms both the sufficiency and finality of Christ's sacrifice and the integrity of the text.

 

Then Daniel is a very bad prophet because the events of AD70 do not fit the prophecy that Daniel gave in the least.

Look again. There is a prince, the Messiah; and a prince who is to come. They are two different people. The prince who is to come with make a covenant with Israel for one week and then will break that covenant in the middle of the week. That cannot be the Messiah since the Messiah will not break his covenant.

But as I have pointed out, this has serious problems.

First, the covenant made is broken. Do you really want to argue that Christ breaks his covenant.

Second, the time doesn't work out. Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week. The covenant is made after that and it is broken in the middle of the week.

Third, the covenant in view isn't made by the Messiah but by the prince who is to come.

Your attempt here is a classic example of bringing a position to the text and doing whatever is necessary to make the position work. You have been forced to redefine the text in order to support your view. My view doesn't have to do that.

But when all is said and done, you guys are not prepared to change your view and I have not seen any evidence that is the least bit convincing to me to change my view, so this discussion, as always, will end in a lot of words and no change ... So unless I am extremely provoked, I will bow out </font>[/QUOTE]Larry,

I don't want to provoke you (except to love and good works), however, your explanations above are full of unproven assumptions.

You say that the covenant made in Daniel is broken--yet that is nowhere stated in the text. Christ is cut off in mid-week, but that does not mean the covenant is broken then--or ever.

The timing works out fine: The covenant was confirmed with the Jews in the last week--first half-by Christ's ministry among them, mid-week by the new covenant in His blood, last half by His disciples' last exclusive ministry among the Jews. After that all the exclusively Jewish covenant requirements were fulfilled.

You also claim that the prince that shall come makes the covenant--yet he is only mentioned here as part of a descriptive phrase about the people who destroy the city and sanctuary. The grammar doesn't fit--he is not the subject here, Messiah is (from the first phrase of the verse). The statement about the people of the prince is essentially a parenthetical statement in the midst of a detailed description of how God would keep His covenant with Isreal (the undeniable context of Daniel 9). Gabriel said he would give understanding about Daniel's concern, not change the subject on him.

And then there's that gaping gap you insert in the 70 weeks ... It is a flat denial of verse 24.

Are you sufficiently provoked to answer?
Actually, I have a pretty good idea of what you'd say anyway

Tim

 

Larry,

You said:

"There is no reason to be inconsistent in your heremeneutic. You want some of it literal and some of it not literal. Yet you have no basis other than your system for determining what is what."

The basis of "hermeneutic" here is what the text intended to say. Some literal and some not? Nothing wrong with that! I'm not one to make the bible complicated - the Gospel is simple. But that does not mean that every detail of every passage is likewise. To understand the OT really we need a good knowledge of second temple Judaism, Hebrew language, and extrabiblical literature. These help us with the tough passages. The main point of the passage is a response to Daniel's prayer and the destiny of nation of Israel. I'll blabber a little more after I put the kids to bed!

You said:

"And that leads to wrong interpretation. Virtually every historian admits there is a precise year value to the weeks."

Who is "virtually every historian"?

 

READER'S DIGEST 1976 ALMANAC AND Yearbook (Reader's Digest, 1976),
page 368, 369:

"132-135 New Revolt by Jews in Jerusalem leads
to final Diaspora (dispersion) of Jews."

"70 Romans Destroy Jewish Temple ; in Jerusalem;
outlaw Jewish priesthood; disperse many Jews throughout
Roman Empire as punishment for Jewish revolt
against Roman rule."

I can understand that much of Jerusalem was destroyed to
destroy the Temple, but that can be rebuilt.

 

God did not delight in the sacrificial system when it was in existence. It would be absurd to say that God will bring back the types and shadows of redemption after Christ has completed the work.

"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain..." (Isaiah 11:9)

Tell that to the sacrificial animals.

 

Fortunately, nobody here said
any such thing.

In 1987 i was talking on a chat room
with a Jewish Rabbi student. Being he a Jew
and i an gentile, good thing the cyber-barrier
was there, else he would not have spoken
to me. He had no idea of my echatalogy,
so his answers were NOT "prompted" by me.

Here are the things Messiah will do
when he comes:

1. bring peace to Yisrael
2. restore the Daily Sacrifice
3. rebuild the Temple in Yerusalem

Remember, this is NOT what God said,
but what an anonomonous person said.

But compare it to what the New Testament
does say. It looks to me like it is
backwards of what he said, that is,
anybody who will do these things will be
received as the Messiah. And it would not
surprise me that this is exactly what
the Beast from the Sea, the Antichrist,
the Prince who shall come
(not Jesus, the Price who has already come).

Then according to the eternal plan of God
that He has let us see parts of in His
Holy Written Word: the Bible -
we know at mid-trib that the Antichrist
will commit the Abomination of Desolation (AoD).
Then will Millions of Jews see that
their real Messiah is Jesus.

 

Ed,

Nothing in the Bible saying, the Messiah shall restore the sacrifice, rebuilt another temple building again when He shall come again.

Remember, Jesus Christ is our covenant maker, he ended daily sacrifice - John 19:30. And Christ is the temple - John 2:21, & Rev. 22:21.

Christ finished it, and we do not need another animal sacrifice again anymore. Because Christ is our sacrifice, and He already wash all our sins away through His own blood - Heb. 10:10. We all can do is ask Christ for forgive us our sins daily 24 hours - 1 Thess. 5:17; and 1 John 1:9.

And we can do is to remember what Christ does for us 2000 years ago, we should give thank to Jesus for our salvation and Calvary.

I think many dispensationalists fail to understand the between old covenant and new covenant. We are no longer under the old covenant anymore, now we are under the new covenant by through Calvary - Heb. 8:13.

Nothing anywhere in the New Testament saying, the old covenant shall be restore again after the second advent. Because are are already under the new covenant by through Calvary.

Why need old covenant again? Is Calvary vain for us?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DeafPosttrib: "Nothing in the Bible saying, the Messiah
shall restore the sacrifice, rebuilt another temple building
again when He shall come again."

You beat the air. Nobody here said "the Messiah shall restore
the sacrifice". If you read, you will see i said the
Anti-messiah (Antichrist, Beast from the Sea, Prince who is to come)
will restore the sacrifice and restore the temple.

Hello! can you tell the difference between Jesus doing
something and somebody else doing it?

 

The Bible does not saying that the Antichrist shall restore the sacrifice and rebuilt the temple in the tribulation period.

Christ ended daily sacrifice by through calvary. And Christ is our temple - John 2:21, & Rev. 21:22.

We do not need another building of temple, because Christ is our temple. We can worship Jesus Christ daily 24 hours.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Colossians 2:16 (KJV1769):

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days:

DeafPosttrib: "We do not need another building of temple,
because Christ is our temple.
We can worship Jesus Christ daily 24 hours."

Amen, Brother DeafPosttrib -- Preach it!

But we won't be here when the Antichrist rebuilds the
Temple in Jerusalem -- Pretribulation Rapture/resurrection, you know.