Hi John and Doves,Here is part II of "my understanding" of this controversial prophecy in Daniel
9:24-27.I want to say how grateful I am for all the "posters" on 5 doves, who
regularly scan the news and information channels, linking doves readers to all
that is going on in the World. Each morning I wonder what fresh piece of
evidence has been posted to help us unravel the mystery of how this gigantic
end-times jigsaw puzzle fits together. Maranatha. God Bless. EAR
DANIEL’S PROPHECY OF 70 WEEKS AND THE COVENANT – PART II
I believe that the interpretation of this passage (Daniel 9:24-27) is the crux of all end-time prophetic expectations. If we get our interpretation of this passage wrong, then all other prophecies will be misaligned, and our “prophetic” world-view will be out of kilter with reality.
1st dispensationalist end-time interpretation scenario – (See part I)
If the first (dispensationalist) school of thought is followed to its rational conclusion, then we must have a future “Roman” leader from a revived Roman empire, (like Titus, whose people destroyed the temple and sanctuary in 70 AD.). This person will, at the end of the gentile age, make (or confirm) a 7 year covenant peace agreement with the Jews, allowing them to rebuild their Temple somewhere on the Temple Mount. During the middle of this 7 year peace agreement he is supposed to break the covenant which will precipitate a 3 ½ year persecution period called the Great Tribulation.
This interpretation also necessitates a condition of war prior to the peace agreement, and some commentators insert the Gog and Magog war here as a prerequisite to the confirmed peace agreement, between “Anti-christ” and his False Prophet and the Jews. Some writers even state they are the same i.e. Gog is the “Anti-christ”. (Please excuse the diversion here, but I must make this point.)
One of the problems with this is that the Beast and False Prophet, (1st entity) and Gog and Magog (2nd entity) are totally different entities.
See my POST (2 MAY 2006) – “GOG IS NOT EITHER OF THE BEASTS OF REV. 13) http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2006/ear52-2.htm
According to Rev. 20:7-10 their tenure on earth is separated by a thousand years. The Beast and the False Prophet are placed in the lake of fire and brimstone prior to the thousand year millennial reign, where they remain until the Devil joins them after the destruction of Gog and Magog on earth.
Rev. 20:7-10 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to DECEIVE the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle; the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city; and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (i.e. Gog and Magog) And the devil that DECEIVED them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, WHERE THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET ARE, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
They quote Ezekiel 38 and 39 for this war. However, since the details of the intended war in Rev. 20:7-10 (above) are not listed in Revelation - I presume they are to be found elsewhere in scripture – and I believe they are in Ezekiel 38 & 39. In both passages Gog and Magog are destroyed by fire from heaven – compare Ezekiel 38:18-22 with Rev. 20:8b-9 marked blue above, especially v.22 “And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.”
To believe that there are two invasions in the Holy Land by Gog and Magog means that they must also believe they survive a first devouring by the fire of God from heaven, and that there are enough of them left to have a 2nd attempt 1,000 years later.
Back to the main topic -
They cite such passages as 1 Thess. 5:3 “For when they shall say Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
and Daniel 8:25. “…and by peace (he) shall destroy many.” These verses, they say, infer that a prior state of peace exists, and these verses relate to the breaking of the peace agreement that leads to the tribulation.
In this line of thinking there must be a re-built temple that the “Roman” will sit in and declare himself to be God. 2 Thess. 2:3b-4 “….and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God It is generally believed that Paul wrote his first epistle to the Thessalonians towards the end of 50 A.D. and the 2nd Epistle some-time afterwards to clear up some misunderstandings of end-time events.
Quote – New Bible Commentary – F.F. Bruce “The language used here regarding the son of perdition (meaning “he who is doomed to destruction” ) echoes the description of the pre-Christian ‘Antichrist’ Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan. 7:25 - 8:9 - 11:36-37 compare also Rev. 13.
“So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God” - This part of the picture of Antichrist probably reflects the attempt by the Emperor Gaius in A.D.40 to have his statue set up in the temple at Jerusalem.” “ …..The principle of rebellion against God is already operating (e.g. in the opposition offered to the gospel in Thessalonica and elsewhere), but it is not openly enthroned in the world as it will be for the brief duration of Antichrist’s domination.” That crisis (in A.D.40) brought vividly to the minds of Christians the eschatological discourse of Jesus preserved in Mark 13 i.e. “when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not…” end Quote.
This would indicate that Jesus’s prediction had already been fulfilled in A.D. 40, by Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus who attempted to desecrate the Temple by ordering his statue to be set up in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. See http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html for a full description of what transpired. This document makes for interesting reading. At the end, one is left wondering if the Jews destroyed the Temple just as much as the Romans. Several Jewish rebellions followed, led by self-styled “messiahs” from 50 A.D. onwards until the consequences of their actions led to a general Jewish revolt in 66 A.D. which finally brought the Roman General Titus forcing his way into Jerusalem, to destroy the fortifications and the Temple. Further disaster awaited the Jews, when another revolt in 132 A.D. led to the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a pagan city, dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus, from which all Jews were excluded.
Back to the topic - This interpretation assumes that the “prince that shall come” in Daniel 9 verse 26, is the same person as the three times mentioned “he” in Daniel 9, verse 27, who breaks the covenant, and causes the events that follow.
In “literature terms” this loose use of a floating “he” is termed a “Multi-pronoun” sentence, which leaves the reader in an ambiguous situation, not being quite sure who it refers to.
An argument against this interpretation comes from literature scholars who consider that the (3 times) “he” in verse 27 actually refers to Messiah the Prince of verse 25. The reason for this is that the “people of the prince that shall come… etc” is in a subordinate position within the sentence, an “aside” so to speak . To put this particular phrase in parenthesis makes sense of the verse, leaving the main subject of the prophecy - Messiah the Prince, and his purpose which focuses on the Jews and Jerusalem - i.e.
25…unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; (and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary); and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.)
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
However, according to this first interpretation of the passage – the only thing that Messiah accomplishes is to appear, and to be “cut off”.
Everything else after that is supposedly accomplished by the end-time “prince” i.e. he confirms “????” covenant – he stops the “????” sacrifice and oblation (which has never been performed in the temple since it was destroyed in 70 A.D.) – in the “????” end-time temple, he sets something up which makes it desolate.
As you can tell from my tone and language, I do not believe in this interpretation. It makes it necessary to “construct” so many “add-ons” to what Daniel wrote, I think it would be enough to make him turn over in his grave!
We will explore the ramifications of the 2nd end-time interpretation scenario in PART III.