Can any of this be correct, or is it all heresy?

I mentioned some of these things before, and wondered about the possibility that some of this may be correct, rather than all of it being heresy:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel 11 mentions the covenant 5 times. Once in line 22:

Daniel 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

Was that speaking of the prince of “peace treaty”? That wouldn’t even make sense. Then once in line 28:

Daniel 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

Does the holy covenant refer to a “peace treaty”? No, I do not think so. Then twice in line 30:

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

Again, why would a “peace treaty” be referred to as the holy covenant?

Also, it is mentioned in context of the abomination of desolation in line 31.

What would a “peace treaty” have to do with the abomination of desolation? Then once more in line 32:

Daniel 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

The covenant is mentioned in context, by contrast between those who know their God, versus those who do wickedly against the covenant.

So why in chapter 9, where first in line 4:

Daniel 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

God keeps his covenant, not a manmade peace treaty.

So, why, then in line 27, would the meaning of the word covenant, suddenly change to peace treaty?

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, then, why after all the other times that "the covenant" is mentioned in relation to the LORD's covenant with Israel, do some think that the term suddenly means something different when used in Daniel 9?

I've always been taught that in Daniel 9, the same term, "the covenant", must mean something totally different, than it does in so many other scriptures.

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.

What if it is prophesying about the coming of Jesus?

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.

So, is it possible that Jesus, and not the antichrist, fulfills Daniel 9:27?

Did not Jesus confirm the covenant?

Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

What would a possible reason be for suddenly changing the use and meaning of "the covenant",

which pervasively had been used in relation to the covenant that the LORD made, into now meaning a peace treaty or a strong military agreement,

unless it was to make the passage seem to fit better with the future antichrist, rather than allowing it to speak of what Jesus did?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in addition to Jesus actually, then, confirming the covenant, as was prophesied, what if the antichrist, knowing this, may want to counterfeit this?

Perhaps the antichrist would attempt to do this, to deceive people in Israel, that he is the long awaited Messiah?

2,000 years ago, during the 3½ years of Jesus' earthly ministry, didn't Jesus kept and fulfill all the law?

Also, didn't Jesus even fulfill all the types and shadows in the law, by his perfect blood sacrifice on the cross, and resurrection from the dead?

Additionally, didn't Jesus also even fulfill the prophecies by all the signs, healings, miracles that he did, during that 3½ years?

So, may not the antichrist attempt to counterfeit the 3½ years, also with miracles, including those of the false prophet calling down fire from heaven, like Elijah did?

Could, then, both of those 3½ years be for Israel, to consider the first half of Daniel's final 7 years prophecy?

First, for Jesus to fulfill, but then, later, for the antichrist to deceive, yet 2,000 years apart from each other?

So, then, could both Jesus and the antichrist focus on Israel for the last 3½ years of Daniel's final 7 year prophecy, but both at the same time?

Jesus to prepare a remnant in Israel during that final 3½ years, that he will rescue, and they will believe on him when he returns?

But the antichrist to destroy Israel, first by getting some to worship him, but then to try and kill all those of Israel who will not worship him, during that same final 3½ years?