Why after all the other times that "the
covenant" is mentioned in relation to the LORD's covenant
with Israel,
I've always been taught that in Daniel 9, the
same term, "the covenant", must mean something totally
different,
I've been taught that only in Daniel 9, it
must mean either a peace treaty or a strong military
agreement.
But what if Daniel 9 is still, like so many
other scriptures, speaking about the LORD's covenant with
Israel?
If so, then the possibility is there, that he
that would confirm the covenant, might not be the
antichrist.
Jesus would confirm the covenant during his
ministry, by fulfilling the law, and by the signs and
miracles.
He would also walk out of the temple,
declaring it to be desolate, at the end of Matthew 23, and
the beginning of 24.
His making the temple desolate, would have
been after about three and a half years of his earthly
ministry.
That would leave a remanning three and a half
years, to be yet fulfilled during the great tribulation,
to
prepare his people to accept their Messiah and his
sacrifice.
With his death on the cross, there is no
more need for animal sacrifices, then or now.
Daniel
9:27 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.
Jesus kept and fulfilled the law and
declared the new covenant.
Jesus, also, was called of the Father to be
an high priest after the order of Melchisedec:
Hebrews
5:5 So also Christ glorified not
himself to be made an high priest; but he that said
unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten
thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
10 Called of God an high priest after
the order of Melchisedec.
The priesthood
has changed, and the law has changed:
Hebrews
7:11 If therefore perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people
received the law,) what further need was
there that another priest should rise
after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called
after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood
being changed, there is made of
necessity a change also of the law.
The Aaronic priesthood,
under the law, has been disannuled:
Hebrews 7:15 And it is yet far
more evident: for that after the similitude of
Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after
the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power
of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth,
Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is
verily a disannulling of the commandment
going before for the weakness and
unprofitableness thereof.
The new covenant priesthood
is an unchangeable priesthood:
Hebrews 7:21 (For those priests
were made without an oath; but this with an oath by
him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not
repent, Thou art a priest
for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath
an unchangeable priesthood.
The old covenant, in which
was the Aaronic priesthood, was said to be decaying
and waxing old:
Hebrews 8:7 For if that
first covenant had been
faultless, then should no place have been sought for
the second.
13 In that he saith, A
new covenant, he hath made the
first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth
old is ready to vanish
away.
Jesus first fulfilled and
confirmed the first covenant during the three and an
half years of his earthly ministry.
Then the he took away the
first covenant:
Hebrews 10:8 Above when he said,
Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest
not, neither hadst pleasure therein;
which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come
to do thy will, O God. He taketh away
the first, that he may establish the
second.
There is no more first
covenant for a third temple.
There are now no more
sacrifices for sin for a third temple, either:
Hebrews 10:18 Now where remission
of these is, there is no
more offering for sin.
That is how, after his three and a half year
ministry, he would have made the sacrifice and oblation
to cease.
Then, because of the overspreading of
abominations, that he rebuked them for, throughout
Matthew 23,
Jesus
made the temple desolate, like Ichabod with the
tabernacle, in I Samuel 4.
Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is
left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto
you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall
say, Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord.
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went
out, and departed from the temple: and
his disciples came to him for
to shew him the buildings of the temple.
It has been desolate ever since, even for
those next forty years before the Romans destroyed the
temple,
those
sacrifices were nothing, offered by those who had
rejected their Messiah and his sacrifice.
Daniel 9:27 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.
So, is it possible that Jesus, and not the
antichrist, fulfills Daniel 9:27?
What would a possible reason be for suddenly
changing the use and meaning of "the covenant",