A Bible Prophecy Timeline – (Part 2) – The Covenant and the Sacrifices- (Rerun)

Before we start this podcast, I wanted to announce the release of my new book, The Deformation,

Examining Reformation Theology through the Lens of the Early Church by me, Chris White,

available in Kindle, Paperback, and audiobook. It's not about Bible prophecy,

it's more general theology, but I think it's my most important book yet. Again, it's called The

Deformation by Chris White. Welcome back to my multi-week study called a Bible prophecy timeline.

This episode is part two, The Covenant and the Sacrifices.

As we discussed in the previous episode, The World Government, which I have listed here as first,

comes before the start of the 70th week of Daniel, that is, the seven-year period in which most

of the events in the last days play out. The Antichrist covenant, however, is widely understood

to be the first event of the seven-year period. The clock seems to start with this covenant.

This is understood to be the case because of the wording of Daniel 927A, which says,

then he, that is the Antichrist, shall confirm a covenant with many for one week,

but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. Since the idea that

this covenant occurs at the very beginning of the seven-year period is widely agreed upon,

I won't attempt to explain why that is here. Instead, I'm going to devote the first part of this

study to explaining what I think the Antichrist is doing with this covenant, since it has a lot of

implications for the overall timeline. Since I've already written extensively about this subject and

even made a video about it in 2014, I'm just going to play that video here and pick back up

on the other side. The seven-year covenant, Daniel 927A says, then he shall confirm a covenant

with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

Here in the last verse of Daniel 9, we have a reference to the Antichrist, making some kind

of covenant with many people. This verse gives weight to the thesis that the Antichrist will claim

to be the Jewish Messiah. Even until very recently, I've assumed that this verse was referring to a

seven-year peace agreement. It has become so common for people to refer to this verse as a peace

treaty of some sort that I confess I sort of took it for granted. However, there is no reason to think

that this covenant is speaking of a peace treaty. In all the Bible versions I have available to me

through Bible software and the internet, a considerable number. The word peace is not mentioned

or even implied. In addition, I suggest that whatever this covenant is that the Antichrist makes

must be a covenant that was already in place based on the underlying Hebrew text.

I believe this verse is referring to the Antichrist trying to fulfill the modern Jewish expectations

of a new covenant that the Messiah will make in the last days. This concept is detailed in many

places in the Old Testament, but a notable one is in Jeremiah 31-31, which states,

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel

and with the House of Judah. Both Christians and Jews believe this verse is Messianic, but there

are two views of this new covenant are vastly different. The Jews believe this means that when the Messiah

comes, he will reconfirm the covenant they already had. That is, the Messiah will make it possible

for them to, once again, abide by the laws given by Moses, especially regarding the daily sacrifices

in the temple. The Jewish view of the phrase New Covenant is no more than a renewed national

commitment to abide by God's laws. Yuri Yosef Ph.D., a Jewish scholar, concludes his paper called

Will the Real New Covenant please stand up this way? Quote, it is evident that Jeremiah's use of

the term New Covenant does not involve the replacement of the Eternal Torah by the New Testament

rather it signals a renewal of the original Sinai covenant. Jews for Judaism.org states,

Quote, Jeremiah's new covenant is not a replacement of the existing covenant, but merely a figure of

speech expressing the reinviguration and revitalization of the existing covenant. Keep in mind that

Yuri Yosef and the writers of the article in Jews for Judaism.org, like many Jewish people,

would agree that this renewing of the Mosaic covenant will happen when the Messiah comes. They

believe that one of the ways he will do this, probably the most important way, is by reestablishing

the sacrificial system. Interestingly, this is exactly what Daniel 927 states, with the words

he shall confirm a covenant. This phrase confirm a covenant, is very interesting, and the Hebrew

words are apparently difficult to translate into English. Note a sample of how differently this

phrase is translated in popular versions of the English Bible. The Net Bible says he will confirm

a covenant. The ESV says, and he shall make a strong covenant. The King James says, and he shall

confirm the covenant, and Young's literal translation says, and he hath strengthened a covenant.

Notice that it isn't just the words, but their core meaning that vary. In the Net translation,

he is confirming an already existing covenant. In the ESV, he makes a new strong covenant. In the

King James, he confirms the covenant, suggesting that it is the Mosaic covenant, and in the Young's

literal translation, he is strengthening an already existing covenant. Of the 19 versions of the

Bible I checked, 11 have the Antichrist confirming or strengthening an already existing covenant,

as opposed to making a new covenant altogether. The obvious question is, which one is right?

I will add a discussion about the details of this linguistic problem in the footnotes,

but I believe the original Hebrew expresses a confirming or strengthening of an already existing

covenant. The idea of the covenant being strengthened comes from the fact that the Hebrew word

sometimes translated confirm carries the meaning of making something strong. I would even suggest

that this covenant was meant to be understood as the covenant, i.e. the Mosaic covenant. Some

translations like the King James even render the word a as the, which suggests a reference to a

particular preexisting covenant. Contextually, that must be the Mosaic covenant. There seems to be

confirmation that we're on the right track with this idea, because the second part of Daniel 927

says, but in the middle of the week, he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering, as if to

suggest that it is obvious that the covenant being strengthened began by starting the daily sacrifices.

This verse is contrasting these two ideas. It's like the verse is saying, he confirms the covenant,

which started the daily sacrifices, but then, three and a half years later, he stops the daily

sacrifices. The words presuppose that the reader understands that the covenant began with the daily

sacrifices restarting. If this verse is speaking of the Antichrist trying to fulfill the Jewish

expectations of Jeremiah 31's new covenant, then the singling out of the daily sacrifice here and in

other places where this event is mentioned is pretty interesting, because to put it simply,

without the daily sacrifice, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to truly keep the Mosaic

covenant. It is the first and most important of all sacrifices to the Jews. It made daily

atonement for their collective sin, and it's believed that this sacrifice must start again for

God's blessing to rest in its fullness on the Jewish people. In the Jewish mind, the reinstatement

of the daily sacrifices at the temple is tangible proof that the Messiah has come, and the new covenant

of Jeremiah 31-31 has come true. If this scenario is true, the idea that the Antichrist will

announce a seven-year covenant, as opposed to announcing an eternal covenant, is absurd.

He would not say, hey, everyone, I'm the Messiah, and now you have a new covenant, but it's really

not eternal, it's only going to last seven years. Here again, I think we are victims of modern

Bible prophecy teaching. Scripture never says that he will say that he is setting up a seven-year

covenant. It only says that the covenant will last seven years. In fact, according to a lengthy

study on grammar by the Popeate commentary, linked in the footnotes, the underlying Hebrew suggest

this too. That study concludes by translating that part of the verse this way. The covenant

shall prevail for many during one week. So it seems clear that the seven-year time frame will not be

announced to the people who are agreeing to it. The Antichrist will, in all probability, say that

it will be an eternal covenant. The mentioning of the seven years is therefore just God telling us

how long this false covenant will really last. Note also that Scripture says it will continue to

last the entire seven years. It won't go away at the midpoint. Only the daily sacrifices will be

taken away. A point we will discuss at length later and the section on the abomination of desolation.

I believe the covenant the Antichrist makes is an argument in favor of the case that he will

claim to be the Jewish Messiah. The Jews are wholeheartedly expecting the Messiah to do the exact

thing Daniel 927 is saying the Antichrist will do. That is, confirm a covenant and start the daily

sacrifices. We can be sure that whoever does this will be looked at as the Messiah by the Jews,

as well as by many Christians, who may see this as the beginning of the millennial reign of Christ.

Let's consider some of these events in context. As I said in the previous episode,

the Antichrist comes on the scene after the formation of the Seventh-Head World Government System

and he is in opposition to that system until he controls it. It could be that this covenant with

Israel causes the major war between the Antichrist and the Three Kings, which ultimately results in

the Antichrist ruling the entire Ten Nations, but will look more at that next time. I think it's

a reasonable hypothesis that the Ten Kings are fundamentally in opposition to Israel, or at least

three of them are. I will argue in the next episode that at least two of the Three Kings are

historical enemies of Israel, Egypt, and Assyria, so that might explain their motivation for attacking

the Antichrist with his extremely pro-Israel stance at the beginning of the Seventieth Week.

I do think that the logical outgrowth of a man giving such an amazing gift to Israel,

that is, their ability to atone for sin, according to their understanding, for the first time since

Seventy-A.D., will be that at least Israel will see him as a potential Messiah, and I think many

professing Christians and the underground persecuted church at the time will as well. I don't

however think that he will declare himself to be Messiah at this early date. I think that the

first three and a half years is the Antichrist sort of showing that he is fulfilling the critical

prophecies of conquest of Israel's specific historical enemies prophesied in places like Isaiah

11, another Messianic prophecies of conquest. I believe, as we will see in later episodes, that it is

not until the midpoint that the Antichrist claims to have delivered them, according to the scriptures

from their enemies, and that the Messianic Age has in fact begun. While I believe that the

beginning of the Covenant in Daniel 927 is the start of the daily sacrificial system, it should be

said that it's not explicit. It's possible that both the temple and the sacrificial system

could have existed before the Antichrist covenant at the beginning of the 70th week,

but I don't think it's likely. I think that the covenant is both a restarting of the sacrifices

on that day, as well as a kind of ribbon cutting on the new temple, or at least an altar on the

temple mount in Jerusalem. I also think that the entire 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 is very

temple-centric. The clock begins in Daniel 9 with a temple being rebuilt, and it ends with another

one being torn down, and I think it will start up again because another one is rebuilt.

I wrote an article and did a podcast about this a long time ago called Daniel's 70 weeks,

the story of two temples, two down, and two to go, which I will link in the description.

All that to say, though it's not explicit, I don't think that the temple or the sacrifices

can exist before the start of the 7-year period. I believe that it's yet another clue that the

Antichrist is giving the Jews their religion back with the start of the 70th week of Daniel,

and this pro-Israel act will anger the world system and force them to war with the Antichrist

for the next three and a half years. But it will all be a ruse to look like the epic battle that

the scripture foretold so that the Antichrist can appear to be the eschatological victor

when his enemies are subdued. All right, that's it for this episode. You can go to the website

bibleproficytalk.com