brian
New Member
Posts: 29 
|
Post by brian on Sept 26, 2017 22:58:44 GMT -6
Hi all, new here. Long time reader, first time writer.
So something that has never sat well with me is the 7 year peace treaty.
I'm not a bible scholar, so I could definitely be missing something, but I was curious what everyone's thoughts were on this cause I don't hear it talked about much. Every time the topic of the 7 year peace treaty comes up it feels like it is just understood that it will happen that way.
That's in part why I am here, to learn, and from what I have read on this site, this is a good place to learn.
Daniel 9:24 - 27 "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Know therefore and understand that from the going out 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.
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."
Why do we assume that there will be a peace treaty? Peace is not mentioned at all, in fact this passage mentions a time of trouble, war and destruction. The only thing we can say for sure about this "covenant" is that it involves reinstating sacrifices, because it specifically say half way through that sacrifices will be put to an end. And as far as I know they are not currently practicing sacrifices. Is a "peace treaty" just the traditional view that has been held onto because it seems to fit, is there a better interpretation? Should we be looking for a different kind of 'covenant'?
Also as I was writing this I noticed something, if you read this like it is chronological, it looks as if there is a lot of bad stuff happening even before the antichrist shows up, that the first half of the tribulation wont be all that peaceful. I could be drifting off on that one, but it seems like recently I have been seeing all kinds of new perspectives on things so thought I would throw it out there.
I guess I bring this up now, because if we are to be raptured soon and we leave messages for those left behind to give them the best chance at salvation, I want to make sure I am giving them the most accurate information possible.
Since everyone here sounds smarter than myself, or just has more time to study, I wanted to hear your thoughts. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by bleever on Sept 26, 2017 23:28:31 GMT -6
Hi Brian
The reason there is presumed to be a peace treaty is because there is currently nowhere for Israel to perform sacrifices. In order for that to happen, there will have to be some kind of peace agreement between Israel and Palestine (presumably together with all the other Arab/Islamic countries), which would allow Israel to build a new Temple on the Temple Mount. Daniel was perhaps not apprised of the exact nature of the covenant (maybe partly because he couldn't have known a peace agreement would even be needed in order for sacrifices to happen).
|
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Sept 26, 2017 23:40:16 GMT -6
Welcome, Brian! I'm glad you broke your silence!  You bring up a great question, and I do not have an immediate satisfactory answer for it. We always (in recent times) assumed it was a peace covenant due to the fact that there has not been peace for building a temple in Jerusalem ever since the reconstituted nation of Israel was established. I agree with you that we are making some assumptions based on our view of the landscape today and in recent years past. I'll be glad to see what others have to say about this topic, because I really don't have much more definitive to add. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Sept 26, 2017 23:47:14 GMT -6
Hi all, new here. Long time reader, first time writer.
So something that has never sat well with me is the 7 year peace treaty.
I'm not a bible scholar, so I could definitely be missing something, but I was curious what everyone's thoughts were on this cause I don't hear it talked about much. Every time the topic of the 7 year peace treaty comes up it feels like it is just understood that it will happen that way.
That's in part why I am here, to learn, and from what I have read on this site, this is a good place to learn.
Daniel 9:24 - 27 "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Know therefore and understand that from the going out 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.
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."
Why do we assume that there will be a peace treaty? Peace is not mentioned at all, in fact this passage mentions a time of trouble, war and destruction. The only thing we can say for sure about this "covenant" is that it involves reinstating sacrifices, because it specifically say half way through that sacrifices will be put to an end. And as far as I know they are not currently practicing sacrifices. Is a "peace treaty" just the traditional view that has been held onto because it seems to fit, is there a better interpretation? Should we be looking for a different kind of 'covenant'?
Also as I was writing this I noticed something, if you read this like it is chronological, it looks as if there is a lot of bad stuff happening even before the antichrist shows up, that the first half of the tribulation wont be all that peaceful. I could be drifting off on that one, but it seems like recently I have been seeing all kinds of new perspectives on things so thought I would throw it out there.
I guess I bring this up now, because if we are to be raptured soon and we leave messages for those left behind to give them the best chance at salvation, I want to make sure I am giving them the most accurate information possible.
Since everyone here sounds smarter than myself, or just has more time to study, I wanted to hear your thoughts. Thanks
A covenant is the biblical term for a contract or agreement. biblehub.com/lexicon/daniel/9-27.htmbiblehub.com/interlinear/daniel/9-27.htmA word study on the phrase in blue indicates that the covenant will prevail. That is, it indicates the covenant is really going to be something closer to a compelled political action. I have no doubt in my mind that Israel will be compelled to the table and force fed the 'agreement'. |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by brian on Sept 27, 2017 0:05:27 GMT -6
Bleever,
Ok, that also raises the issue of the location of the temple. I have seen and read some pretty convincing theories that the temple mount is actually the old roman fortress. And if the temple mount is the right location, how do we reconcile the fact that Jesus said that not one stone would be left on another? I know this is kind of a tangent.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysPraying on Sept 27, 2017 0:07:14 GMT -6
Hi Brian The reason there is presumed to be a peace treaty is because there is currently nowhere for Israel to perform sacrifices. In order for that to happen, there will have to be some kind of peace agreement between Israel and Palestine (presumably together with all the other Arab/Islamic countries), which would allow Israel to build a new Temple on the Temple Mount. Daniel was perhaps not apprised of the exact nature of the covenant (maybe partly because he couldn't have known a peace agreement would even be needed in order for sacrifices to happen). You pretty much covered the same thoughts I have on the matter. There hasn't been a Jewish temple in thousands of years, (since the second temple was destroyed as Jesus warned in Matt. 24:1,2). And even then, the Jews were under Roman occupation. In the political climate since that time, any attempt at a revived Israeli state reinstating the temple would likely be opposed by others in the region (esp. considering the likely location of the previous temples and what building currently stands on the temple mount). So the inference is that the antichrist covenant would involve some peace agreement. As a side note: I'm convinced the whole reason Satan (through the antichrist) will make a covenant with Israel, for the rebuilding of the temple, will be so that he can sit in the temple and declare himself to be God (see Isaiah 14:12-14, Matt 24:15 and 2 Thess. 2:4). Satan wants to do that in the heavenly temple, but God is on the throne there. Also, welcome to the forum Brian. |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Sept 27, 2017 0:08:23 GMT -6
Bleever, Ok, that also raises the issue of the location of the temple. I have seen and read some pretty convincing theories that the temple mount is actually the old roman fortress. And if the temple mount is the right location, how do we reconcile the fact that Jesus said that not one stone would be left on another? I know this is kind of a tangent. Good questions, and I am not an authority on this topic per se, but one thought about the temple: I would say the stones of the western wall are NOT stones from the temple, but are stones of the platform the temple was on. To me there is a difference. That's just from what I can tell. |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by brian on Sept 27, 2017 0:08:31 GMT -6
Yardstick,
Hmm that is interesting, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsmitty on Sept 27, 2017 0:15:31 GMT -6
The fact that the world will be saying "peace and security" is also a piece of the puzzle to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Sept 27, 2017 0:21:29 GMT -6
Hi Brian The reason there is presumed to be a peace treaty is because there is currently nowhere for Israel to perform sacrifices. In order for that to happen, there will have to be some kind of peace agreement between Israel and Palestine (presumably together with all the other Arab/Islamic countries), which would allow Israel to build a new Temple on the Temple Mount. Daniel was perhaps not apprised of the exact nature of the covenant (maybe partly because he couldn't have known a peace agreement would even be needed in order for sacrifices to happen). You pretty much covered the same thoughts I have on the matter. There hasn't been a Jewish temple in thousands of years, (since the second temple was destroyed as Jesus warned in Matt. 24:1,2). And even then, the Jews were under Roman occupation. In the political climate since that time, any attempt at a revived Israeli state reinstating the temple would likely be opposed by others in the region (esp. considering the likely location of the previous temples and what building currently stands on the temple mount). So the inference is that the antichrist covenant would involve some peace agreement. As a side note: I'm convinced the whole reason Satan (through the antichrist) will make a covenant with Israel, for the rebuilding of the temple, will be so that he can sit in the temple and declare himself to be God (see Isaiah 14:12-14, Matt 24:15 and 2 Thess. 2:4). Satan wants to do that in the heavenly temple, but God is on the throne there. Also, welcome to the forum Brian. nice hypothesis. |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by brian on Sept 27, 2017 0:25:31 GMT -6
Watchmanjim
Ok, that would make sense too thanks.
Bleeder
Yeah I agree about Satan's motives, he's always trying to mimic God, just in his own perverted way.
Thanks for the input guys, I like to look at things from all angles to see what fits best. I find that as soon as I think I know something I'm reminded I know very little, so I try to give all theories a fair test.
Look forward to more responses and picking your brains some more.
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by brian on Sept 27, 2017 0:34:08 GMT -6
Whoops, just noticed it was AlwaysPraying who responded, sorry and thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Sept 27, 2017 6:11:23 GMT -6
Welcome brian, I can't really add much more to what others have already stated except to say you picked one of the meatiest verses in the entire bible. There's enough meat there to feed an army. I believe it drove Sir Isaac Newton crazy during his life. |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by brian on Sept 27, 2017 7:24:09 GMT -6
Haha thanks Rick.
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by brian on Sept 27, 2017 7:29:22 GMT -6
Hey Mrsmitty, you are right, and thanks that gave me another thought. The bible says people will be 'saying peace and security' not that there will be peace and security. I will be 35 next month and as long as I can remember people have been saying peace in the middle East. Would constant peace talks not be considered people saying peace and security? Have we been witnessing prophecy fulfilled and not realize it? Just a thought, anyone else?
|
|
