It seems plausible to me that the covenant could be:
The unity between the Roman Empire (out of which the Antichrist shall arise) and the Jewish leaders to reject, silence, kill that 'rabble-rouser' who claims to be the King of the Jews, thereby allowing the Jewish religion to cohabitate in 'peace' with the world governing body.
The Jews are responsible for rejecting and having their Messiah killed, but they needed Rome's authority, power and custom to do so.
To this very day ALL the world's false religions exist and grow under authority and sanction (openly or secretively) of that mother of all harlots, Rome, including Judaism.
The conventional view of the covenant is some kind of world-publicized political agreement, something utterly new, whereby the nation of Israel gets exclusive rights to rebuilt and resume their temple practices on the temple mount. We picture a CNN exclusive where Mr. Antichrist and Mr. Top Rabbi shake hands over the cornerstone ceremony. I imagine there will be a fanfare, but I think the legal grounds for it might already have been laid.
I propose that if the alliance happened back in John 19, they may just get their temple rolling right after the translation of the church, or even slightly before. Its a bit of a mystery what exactly will take place immediately following or preceding the translation, in regards to the building of the temple.
Many sources say that they have all the furniture, implements, instruments etc ready to go already. It could go up very quickly, especially if the richest people in the world are behind its construction.
CKG: Thanks for your ideas.
About a covenant needing two parties to make it, they were very much indeed present in Jerusalem during Christ's 'trial'. Rome always wanted their version of peace and control over the Jews. The Roman ruler obviously consented to the desire of the Jewish chief priests to have but one king, Caesar, or else the crucifixion would not have happened by Roman soldier's hands. Granted, Pontius Pilate attempted to sway them and resist it, but was ultimately subject to the rule of his Caesar too.
The spirit of Antichrist was surely present back then, as it is to this day, in fact there are many: 1Jn 2:18, 1Jn 4:3.
As to Titus breaking a covenant in 70 AD, note that 70 AD is after the age of grace had started. (ie: the stopwatch had already paused on the 70th week) What's to say it doesn't get renewed after the translation of the church? No other group has been persecuted more by Rome's influence than the Jews during the last 1900 years, can't argue that, but that's all during the time when the 70th week is paused. Satan has plenty of reasons to persecute the Jew, but I won't get off onto that...
The passage in Daniel is clear when the city would be rebuilt, the messiah cut off, and the covenant being struck. The passage is entirely focused on God dealing with the Jews. There are no pauses in there, I agree, and that is why there was no pause between the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70. That's what the Bible says.
Now, its generally known that the Old Testament prophets did not really forsee the age of grace. I think Larkin's drawing titled "the Perspective of Prophecy" illustrates that quite well. So, as Daniel was given a prophecy of the 70 weeks as concerning the Jews, and God stopped dealing with the Jews when he converted Paul and sent the gospel to the gentiles, then its entirely plausible that the 70 weeks would have a pause in them that an OT prophet couldn't see.
The only difference of ideas here is did the pause come smack on the line between 69 and 70, or 220 days into the 70th week?
There is a lot of corroborating evidence in the early chapters of Acts to support that the age of grace to the gentile had not yet come about, and that means God was still dealing with the Jews, hence the 70 weeks was still ticking away.
Things like, the message of the gospel being preached (it wasn't by grace through faith alone as it is today). The fact they were only preaching to Jews. The fact that the apostolic signs and wonders were in effect to convince that unbelieving Jew. Paul's rebuking of Peter and the signs to prove to the Jewish apostles that the Holy Spirit had gone to the gentile as well. The dramatic changes that occurred when God stopped dealing with the Jew and went to the gentile.
Well, thanks again CKG for your input, I really appreciate any discussions we can have, and please know, all of you out there, I'm not in this for a debate, but to toss it around enough so that I can know if its true or not. If I counter something someone says, its to try to weigh the evidence, not to argue with the person gracious enough to discuss it with me.
I agree that the matter of the covenant is crucial to this theory, so I'm open to more conversation on that.
In Christ,
~Brian
|