The AntiChrists Covenant

[WallDoctor]

I'm new here, this is my first post so forgive me if I'm in the wrong section. I do hold to a Prewrath position so I felt this was as good a place to post my question as any.

I am actually asking this question with the full anticipation that I am wrong and just don't know how I am. This is a new idea (to me at least) and I am always very weary when someone comes up with a "new" biblical idea -- especially if it's my own.

Here it is:

I was reading Luke 22:20 where Jesus says, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

It made me wonder. Why does everyone talk about in Daniel 9 how the covenant that the Antichrist makes is going to be a political treaty? God made a covenant with us and we confirm that covenant when we become believers. We know that there will be false prophets and false christs in the last days, why isn't it that the Antichrist will be someone who professes faith in Christ and becomes a "christian" for 7 years, and in the first 1/2 of that 7 years is opposed to false religions and promotes Christianity, and then at the midpoint, completely abandons the faith, turns on us, persecutes the church. The many who fall away will be disillusioned with Christianity just like people are when a Jim Baker or a pastor of a local church falls away.

It would also mean we are looking for the wrong thing. We should be looking for some world leader who appears to convert to Christianity and who we consider to be an ally in the faith.

I think of someone like Tony Blair who just converted to Catholicism and who is pushing for peace in the middle east and wants to be the first EU President. Someone like if he fell could potentially cause a lot of Catholics (many) to fall away.

I know the importance of literal/face value interpretation but also expect that we will be surprised at how God will fulfill Scripture. Another reason I found this idea attractive. God made a real covenant with men and still fits with a literal fulfillment.

I hate to even ask this question because I don't want to be considered a crackpot but it seemed to fit on the surface. I am not a end times scholar. So feel free to completely put me in my place on this one. (But be merciful please)

[Abiding in His Word]

to the board, WallDoctor! Interesting thoughts. I immediately thought of Tony Blair and then read the following paragraph where you mentioned his name as one others have suggested. Thanks for posting your question. I'll be intereted in the thoughts of other members as well.

Just to acquaint you with the various forums...the pre-trib, pre-wrath, and post-trib forums are protected from opposing views so your post in this forum will most likely be responded to by other pre-wrathers. If you wish other views as well, you can post in the Prophecy Debate forum.

Hope that helps.

[WallDoctor]

Thanks. I appreciate the welcome. :) I have been enjoying the site.

Thanks for not calling me a crackpot straight out. :) After you also mentioned Tony Blair, I went and looked him up on wikipedia (love that site). Here is what it says:

On 22 December 2007, it was disclosed that Blair had converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and that it was "a private matter". He had informed Pope Benedict XVI on 23 June 2007 that he wanted to become Roman Catholic. The Pope and his advisors criticised some of Blair's political actions, but followed up with a reportedly unprecedented red-carpet welcome that included Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, who would be responsible for Blair's Catholic instruction.

Well, I am not saying Tony Blair is the Antichrist, but if were to use him as an example, you could say that the "covenant" was made on June 23, 2007 when Tony Blair informed the Pope he wanted to be Roman Catholic. Which would mean we are almost 2 years into it. Actually, I guess that's not that much different then if it's the ENP. :) Just be looking at the wrong person. :)

But again, I'm just using Tony Blair as an example.

[nonymouse]

Welcome, WD.

[rizen]

It made me wonder. Why does everyone talk about in Daniel 9 how the covenant that the Antichrist makes is going to be a political treaty?

WallDoctor,

I think the reason most people believe this treaty will be political is because the text of Daniel 7:8 relates how the Roman Antichrist will rise to power amongst 10 kings. The use of the Aramaic word "melek" in Daniel 7:24 suggests these ten horns in Daniel 7:8 will be ruling entities of a political nature. The fact that the Roman Antichrist is symbolized in a similar horn-like fashion suggests that he too will be of a "melek" or king-like nature.

It would also mean we are looking for the wrong thing. We should be looking for some world leader who appears to convert to Christianity and who we consider to be an ally in the faith.

This is a valid question. Instead of framing the Antichrist in the the context of Christianity, I think the more intriguing idea would be to frame the "type" of Christianity in the context of the Antichrist. If you read the parable of the fig tree and all the trees in Judges 9:8-14, you will discover how each of them is seeking a king to reign over them. Down in verse 14, we read how the evil bramble is the one that will succeed in reigning over all the trees, including the fig tree. It's little coincidence then, in Mark 11:13-14, how we see where Jesus curses the fig tree.

A fig tree that yields leaves without any fruit represents a particularly abhorrent type of Christianity: a works-based form of righteousness, instead of the truly authentic form of faith-based righteousness. Faith in Christ is what justifies Christians, not works. The book of Isaiah likens our works as filthy rags and justifiably so.

According to 2 Thess. 2:3 there will be a great apostacy that precedes Antichrist. Whether or not this apostacy has some direct correlation to the Antichrist remains to be seen, however my point is there does appear to be a form of Christianity that will emerge in the last days that holds to a strictly works-based form of righteouseness that many Christians will buy into. This is what makes "works-based" political figures like Tony Blair and Barak Obama so pertinent to a discussion about the type of last days Christianity. Both of these political figures are very big into helping the poor and needy. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with these types of works, and they are indeed commendable and good, it's important to separate this type of works-based "sanctification" from faith-based "justification". Jacob Prasch always says, "Christians don't do good works to get saved, they do them because they are saved."

In the last days there does appear to be a form of Christianity that will emerge that will promote a works-based form of justification that divorces itself from the authentic faith-based repentance and trust in Christ that most of us know to be true. If this does happen, and probably is now happening to some degree, then you can be certain the Antichrist is imminently upon us.

I was reading Luke 22:20 where Jesus says, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

Interesting parallel, Walldoctor. I haven't considered this point before, but it's certainly provocative. At the midpoint of the seventieth week, I personally believe a new covenant will be issued that be much more comprehensive and overtly evil than the one issued at the beginning of the week. This would be the point where God provokes the ten kings to agree and give their kingdom to the Antichrist in Revelation 17:17. In this sense, the words of Christ in Luke 22:20 might prefigure the type of "worship-me" covenant that is issued at the midpoint of the 70th Week. The fact that Revelation 13:3 relates how the Antichrist is miraculously healed from a deadly wound and is then worshiped by all earth-dwellers in Rev. 13:8 would suggest how the Antichrist's covenant might echo the words of Christ in Luke 22:20.

[nike]

WallDoctor,

Daniel 9:24 starts by saying "70 weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city..." This is the reason why when in verse 27 he says "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week..." it is assumed this is a covenant with Israel as a nation, thus implying some sort of political affiliation. Since Israel in general does not hold to Jesus as the Messiah, I have a hard time seeing this covenant as someone who fakes a Christian walk only to abandon the faith later. I doubt at this point whether having a covenant with a Christian is really a high priority for them. The final week, though it has worldwide implications, was prophesied by Daniel concerning the nation Israel and its holy city, Jerusalem. I guess I don't see what the covenant you are describing would look like with the people of Israel and their holy city. Plus the stop to grain offering and sacrifice is a Jewish practice, not a Christian sacrament.

I knew an elderly gentleman who died a few years after he was saved, who was a general in the Israeli army, as well as the bridge and chess champion in Israel. He was firmly prewrath as well, and pointed out to me that the term covenant is a very common term for agreement. He said that there were hundreds of covenants that Israel had with foreign nations and rulers and he believed that the "firm covenant" would simply be an existing covenant that would be ratified by the antichrist - it wouldn't necessarily be a visible, hugely publicized event since covenants are so common in government. That's why we don't look for a covenant, but for the midpoint desecration of the Temple.

I think you have to be careful interpreting Daniel 9 with a worldwide application, though there is a worldwide effect during the great tribulation, this covenant is specifically with Israel.

nike

[WallDoctor]

You make some really good points. As I said, it was Luke 22:20 that made me even think of the covenant in terms beyond politcal treaties.

So Nike, you make the point that a Christian leader wouldn't mean much to Israel---kinda forgot that part. But maybe that would make it even a more momentous thing--- using the same reasoning, what if the covenant that the Antichrist confirms with Israel is the OLD covenant. :) What if its a Gentile leader who "converts" to Judaism. Reminds me of Matthew 23:15:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

Definitely a child of Hell twice as much as the Pharisees sounds like a good definition of the Antichrist. Though I know I'd be taking this passage out of context to say it was a prophetic passage.


The true reason my mind went down this very strange path with the Covenant was because of where Jesus says "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place."

I have no problem with the Temple being rebuilt but I've always seen it as a place of false worship anyway. Christ is our true temple and he said so when he said that he'd rebuild the temple in three days (referring to himself). And at his death, the veil in the temple was torn in two. The Temple was later destroyed to demonstrate that there is no longer any holy place on earth. And Jesus said to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21-23:

“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth,"

So when Jesus talks about the holy place, it made me wonder what he meant. Does he simply mean the Temple as perceived as a holy place by Jews (though not really a holy place), or something else. And that's when Luke 22:20 came to my mind and I I thought about the covenant.

Of course, the danger with this line of reasoning is that I'm beginning to stray from a literal interpretation. So I'm trying to see if there is a way to reconcile this line of reasoning and still remain faithfully literal.

[Salty Skipper]

WallDoctor!!

[nike]

You know, WallDoctor, another reason it is most likely a political leader is because of the verse that says "...the people of the prince who is to come..." (Daniel 9:26), implying that those who destroyed the temple and the city are of the same lineage of the one who later comes to make the covenant. I think a prince is likely referring to a political leader. And again, I just am not too caught up with the whole covenant thing - first because it's not what Jesus told us to look for and second because the term covenant is too broad to assume that when you see it it's referring to either the Old or New Covenant between God and man.

As for the Temple - at the time Daniel received this prophecy, the Temple was a valid place of worship. Because he mentions destroying the sanctuary and then mentions sacrifice and grain offering (which are processes of the temple) we determine that he is talking about the actual Temple. Add to that Jesus referring to it as the "holy place" in Matt. 24 and we again think "Temple." I know your literal interpretation struggles are sincere and to a certain extent we have the whole of scripture to help us understand what was written, but I think there is enough evidence that the antichrist is going to be a literal man - not a spirit or a nation - and when Jesus refers to him "standing" we can cross out the possibility that the "holy place" is now the hearts of believers, since one man can not literally stand in the hearts of all believers. I think you will head off on a figurative rabbit trail with that one which will lead you way off track. Try to sit next to the disciples for this teaching and imagine what they thought when they heard what Christ was teaching. I don't think He was trying to be deceiving or tricky - He was pointing back to Daniel's prophecy as a specific, concrete mark for us to watch for...

See you in the morning, WallDoctor!

nike

[WallDoctor]

Nike,

I didn't know that we knew each other. From the Nike reference I think I can guess who you are -- or at least I have it narrowed down to 2. :) I didn't realize who I was going up against.

Knowing me the way you do, I want to make sure you didn't misunderstand something (or anyone else reading this).

I do believe in a face value/literal hermeneutic. Problem with that though is that if you get one thing wrong, it has a cascading effect on the rest of Scripture or Prophecy---which is the problem with Pre-tribbers who also believe that they are literal. In fact, even my old church considered themselves to have the same hermeneutic---and yet you would most likely disagree that they are by the way they interpreted Rev 20.

I do believe that the Antichrist is going to be a literal political leader. That has never been an issue of debate anywhere I've ever gone to church. As far as the idea of "not a spirit or a nation," I've obviously from my amillennial background have heard that argument before. I've always considered it weak because even if it were a spirit or a nation, there is always leadership from the top which directs that evil. I do think it will be a symbiotic relationship between the Antichrist leading and the wickedness of men coming out into the open. Just look at how militant the gay movement is becoming. To deny a literal Antichrist is to deny the Neros, Hitlers, and Stalins of the world.

It was really helpful when you made the point that the Temple was holy when Jesus was teaching his disciples. I really have to remember that. It's really hard to remember the historical context of the time when we have all of Scripture plus 2000 years of history available to us.

Also, I know we are to look to the midpoint. I wasn't trying to minimize that. After reading three novels, using a fourth as a reference, going through a couple of classes and numerous conversations with some experts that was one of the BIG things I remember. :) I was thinking more in the context of those who think that Javier Solana is the Antichrist and that the ENP is the Covenant and we are 2 years into the Tribulation. Even though everyone who thinks this realizes we won't know for sure until the midpoint. My thought was if it was either the mosaic or new covenant, then when these things happen, it might be a political leader who recently "converted" to Judaism or Christianity and not the political treaty that people would find. With that in mind I went onto Wikipedia for 5 minutes (and didn't find anything) to see if there were any Leaders in the EU who had just recently converted to Judaism. I would think if that happened, I would still consider that a literal fulfillment of the covenant confirmation and it would still have to be a political leader.

One thing I am very fearful of is this. When Christ came the first time, he fulfilled all the prophecies literally but in a most unpredictable and unforeseeable way. Yet, while we acknowledge we expect some surprises, many have a very firm idea in mind how it will take place.

I don't want to be so set in my position of how things are to unfold that I am caught essentially as unprepared as someone who is looking for a Rapture before the Tribulation is to take place. For example, I do NOT believe this. But I know some believe that the defilement of the Temple by the Antichrist is going to be in the form of a Catholic Pope who renounces the Church and I guess defiles the Vatican. Well, if that were the case, would we be denying that this is the Tribulation because we are looking at Israel and nothing is happening there?

I want to have a strong biblical knowledge of Scripture and of End Times and I am fully willing to have a strong opinion of how things will unfold, but I want to be flexible enough that even if it doesn't happen even remotely the way I think its supposed to that I will recognize it for what it is. In some ways, as a former Amillenialist, I wonder if I will be most prepared. :) (pat on back, pride, oops, repent) :)

For record, after your explanation, I am back on the "political treaty/physical temple" path.

WallDoctor

[nike]

I hear your caution, WallDoctor, and let me encourage you that though many missed the obvious connection between the messianic prophecies and the person of Jesus Christ, not all missed it. As a matter of fact, the wisemen, respectfully and literally studying Daniel's prophecies, didn't miss it. The Gospel writers drew the literal connection. Simeon and Anna in the temple recognized the literal fulfillment immediately. And even the disciples, though sometimes they dropped the ball, often times were able to put two and two together. Remember why they were waiting in the upper room 10 days after the ascension? Christ's literal fulfillment of the three previous three feasts led them to the conclusion that the fourth (Pentecost) would have literal significance as well.

I think if we study the Word continually, that even if we bring into the equation a faulty preconceived idea, that as the events unfold, we will be humble enough to change our perspective and acknowledge truth when we see it! I don't question your heart or your hermeneutic, WD - I know you love the Lord and want to be found faithful! I also know you have a family you want to lead and protect, so I totally understand your passion for this study!

Keep up the good work and keep coming with your comments and questions. I really don't have all the answers, but you will find here at FP a true heart for the Word and for truth...

nike

[WallDoctor]

I appreciate your comments Nike. Thanks. :)

I definitely believe we are given end times prophecy for a reason. And this is where I differ from the pan-millennialists of the world. If all we needed to know (or if all we could know) was that Jesus will one day return to judge the wicked and reward the righteous then Revelations would be a bit shorter.

I also think that things will be a lot more clear as we enter that time period. A reason why the more I think about the ENP Treaty and how we are only a year away from that midpoint, the more unlikely it seems that we are there yet. Though, with how the Pope, Palestinians, Obama, Tony Blair, Arab world and even hints of Netanyahu supporting a 2 State Solution, Obama saying he sees this solution set up within 3 years, and Hamas guaranteeing 10 years of peaceful co-existence if this happens. That to me would be a more likely Treaty to keep in mind.

Oh, and if I have to live through the generation when this all happens, I am hoping like crazy that I'm given at least 15 more years before it takes place (and that my wife doesn't get pregnant any more) :D

[Abiding in His Word]

Nike,

I didn't know that we knew each other. From the Nike reference I think I can guess who you are -- or at least I have it narrowed down to 2. :) I didn't realize who I was going up against.

How wonderful that is that you two know each other!

[nike]

Abiding,

I have encouraged many people from my church to come here - right now most are lurking but some have created identities so they can post. I go to a prewrath church and much of our congregation is really getting into studying the basic foundations for end times. FP is a wonderful place to direct them to - so much information and discussion. I figured out who WallDoctor was pretty quickly, though I think he's not sure who I am yet...there are a couple of us here that he's whittled it down to...I'll let him keep guessing...

[Abiding in His Word]

I'll let him keep guessing

[WallDoctor]

I have encouraged many people from my church to come here

Well, I think that's the final clue I needed to confirm my suspicions. I am surprise that SHE ( ) figured out who I was so quickly -- though I did mention I was on the site. I would be interested to know how she figured out it was me unless she was familiar with the reference, "WallDoctor." (Either that, or I am way too predictable in my speech/typing patterns.)

[nike]

Yes...and yes! Plus I'm pretty attentive...

[Pretzelogical]

Pre-wrath church! WOW! You are so blessed, indeed!

If you have not run across this yet, there are at least a dozen of us at this board who have made it known that we do not see the anti-Christ making a covenant in Daniel 9. Instead, THE Covenant speaks of the Covenant of God. The "prince who is to come" and "The Messiah the prince" are Jesus confirming THE covenant, and being cut off halfway through the seven. As the Lamb of God, Jesus put an end to the need of blood sacrifice. Jesus also caused the grain offering to cease as He is the bread of life. Chrsit was poured out like a drink offering, and we are to pour ourselves out and be living sacrifices.

Paul says that we too are to be living sacrifices (Romans 12:1) and declares he is being poured out like a drink offering, because both of these offerings ceased. Several threads and discussions within other threads along these lines can be found. If interested, I posted a lengthly explanation of Jesus and THE covenant at this thread on May 9:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=49395

There must be two or more witnesses in the scriptures. Daniel 9 is the only place where the anti-Christ confirming covenant teaching can be found, as far as I know. ?elsewhere?

[kazbo]

Pretz, what I don't get is that if Jesus is the "prince to come", then what about this?

The people of the ruler [prince, in some versions] who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

If Jesus confirmed the covenant, when specifically do you think he did?

[Pretzelogical]

We read in scripture that the "holy city" is the people of God vs. the "great city" which is the people against God.
Believers are the holy city today. In the Old Testament, believers had faith that God would do as He said He would, and send the Messiah. They died in faith, though did not behold the day that THE Covenant was confirmed.
Jesus, the Promised Messiah, confirmed THE Covenant in His own blood.

Jesus claimed He was the temple that the leaders would tear down, and in three days, He would raise it up again. Scripture says the leaders did not understand that Jesus was speaking of His own body as the temple.

As the Sanctuary, the very Refuge in times of trouble, Jesus' body was destroyed by His own people who received Him not. Then, His people destroyed His followers, the holy city.

Scripture says believers are:
-the body of the Messiah (Christ)
-in the Messiah (Christ)
-the temple of the Messiah (Christ)
-built upon the Chief Cornerstone that the builders rejected (Christ)
-are a confirmation of THE Covenant fulfillment

God is in the business of saying what He will do, and then doing it to confirm His word is always true.
Jesus came as a suffering servant to confirm God kept His promise to send the Messiah. Jesus was the confirmation of God's Covenant. After Jesus ascended, the Holy Spirit confirmed the message by sign gifts just as Jesus has said would happen. Believers remain on earth as a confirmation that the word of God is true. As salt and light, believers are to restrain evil and preserve the testimony of the truth that Jesus confirmed THE Covenant. Once the apostasy is to the point that believers are no longer salty, they will be good for nothing except to be trampled upon, as Jesus said. That apostasy, the removing of the saltiness that restrains (the restrainer), that apostasy must come first before all hell will break loose. We are clearly seeing that today. The church is becoming less salty, and thus, not much of a restrainer of evil.

God confirms His word:
Leviticus 26:9
'So I will turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm My covenant with you.

Deuteronomy 8:18
"But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 9:5
"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

2 Samuel 7:25
"Now therefore, O LORD God, the word that You have spoken concerning Your servant and his house, confirm it forever, and do as You have spoken,

1 Kings 8:26
"Now therefore, O God of Israel, let Your word, I pray, be confirmed which You have spoken to Your servant, my father David.

1 Chronicles 16:17
He also confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,To Israel as an everlasting covenant,

2 Chronicles 6:17
"Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, let Your word be confirmed which You have spoken to Your servant David.

Psalm 89:28
"My lovingkindness I will keep for him forever,
And My covenant shall be confirmed to him.

Psalm 93:5
Your testimonies are fully confirmed; Holiness befits Your house,O LORD, forevermore.

Psalm 105:10
Then He confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,

Psalm 119:106
I have sworn and I will confirm it,
That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.

Isaiah 44:26
Confirming the word of His servant
And performing the purpose of His messengers
It is I who says of Jerusalem, 'She shall be inhabited!'
And of the cities of Judah, ' They shall be built.
'And I will raise up her ruins again.

Jeremiah 11:5
in order to confirm the oath which I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day "'" Then I said, " Amen, O LORD."

Jeremiah 28:6
and the prophet Jeremiah said, " Amen! May the LORD do so; may the LORD confirm your words which you have prophesied to bring back the vessels of the LORD'S house and all the exiles, from Babylon to this place.

Daniel 9:12
"Thus He has confirmed His words which He had spoken against us and against our rulers who ruled us, to bring on us great calamity; for under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what was done to Jerusalem.

Mark 16:20
And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed...

Romans 15:8
For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers,

1 Corinthians 1:6
even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,

1 Corinthians 1:8
who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 5:10
After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

All of Daniel 9 is about Israel turning from God, and confessing that sin to a faithful God who keeps THE Covenant. In God's mercy, He sends a messenger to Daniel to tell him of how God will confirm THE Covenant, because God is faithful, even though His people are not so.

The number seven in scripture denotes completeness, perfection, God's holiness. The first half of the "seven" has been confirmed, as God said He would do. The second half of the "seven" will be confirmed when all evil is purged and God reigns in full glory, just as He said in THE Covenant!
AMEN!

[nike]

It's an interesting theory, Pretzelogical, but it's too much of a stretch for me. I take things more at face value. When it says city, I think city, not the followers of God. Do you have biblical support that the followers of God are called the holy city? And what is the abomination of desolation which Daniel as well as Jesus and Paul (man of lawlessness) point to, according to your view? Is it just the covenant you don't think is literal?

Also, Isaiah 28 talks about the covenant with death and the pact with Sheol which I believe is reference to the covenant with Antichrist.

[IamtheWalrus]

It's an interesting theory, Pretzelogical, but it's too much of a stretch for me. I take things more at face value. When it says city, I think city, not the followers of God. Do you have biblical support that the followers of God are called the holy city? And what is the abomination of desolation which Daniel as well as Jesus and Paul (man of lawlessness) point to, according to your view? Is it just the covenant you don't think is literal?

Also, Isaiah 28 talks about the covenant with death and the pact with Sheol which I believe is reference to the covenant with Antichrist.

Not a theory, but fact. I have too debated this on several occasions and have not heard a shred of evidence supporting the theory of the AC as "He". Think the church, the church, the church, old and new Testament.
The AOD is not an outside force from the church, but an inside force. The AOD was not focusing on AEIV of the prophecy, but of the HIgh Priest in allegiance with him. Thus goes the same for the AOD Jesus spoke of. Thus goes for the Son of Perdtion which Paul spoke of. This brings us to Judas, the other Son of Perdtion, who is in the church.
This then brings us to the woman...Israel first, then harlot and adulteress. Then we see Mystery Babylon, which brings us to the mystery that Paul spoke of...the church and Christ....and then to Babylon, the world inlfuence.

Mystery - Church and Christ - most notably, the marraige
Woman - Israel, and now, all in Christ are Israel.
Babylon - World influential system

The covenant of death is not with the AC, but the church's allegiance to the world/Babylon, like Israel's was with its neighbors. That was the covenant of death then, and will be fulfilled completely with it in the end.
Our eyes need to be on the church.

[nike]

Sorry, am I am bit dense. What is the AEIV? I don't understand that paragraph.

Am I right in deciphering that you are not looking for a man to desecrate a temple then? You are just waiting for...what? The church to align with the world? After Jesus lists tangible, literal events - wars, rumors of war, famine, earthquakes, persecution, betrayal, lawlessness, false prophets - then He throws in one thing that is to cause an action. When you see the AOD STANDING in the holy place, then flee. So what exactly are we to look for so that we can flee and how does your AOD STAND?

[IamtheWalrus]

Sorry, am I am bit dense. What is the AEIV? I don't understand that paragraph.

Am I right in deciphering that you are not looking for a man to desecrate a temple then? You are just waiting for...what? The church to align with the world? After Jesus lists tangible, literal events - wars, rumors of war, famine, earthquakes, persecution, betrayal, lawlessness, false prophets - then He throws in one thing that is to cause an action. When you see the AOD STANDING in the holy place, then flee. So what exactly are we to look for so that we can flee and how does your AOD STAND?

Antiochus Epiphanes IV AEIV...sorry. I just see that acronym so much on this board...anyway.

IMO nike, the temple is already here, built in Christ and the church.
Of course those events will happen, but it to be a singular event, begs proper analysis. Is it the event of AEIV in the one time desecration, or is it a cointinuous one, like the priest in allegiance with him, and many other powers of the ancient world? Rome included.

You have to stick to what the scripture says.
Paul says "son of perdition. That is a clue.
Judas is the son of perdition. There is part of the answer.
What does this say about him, his name, and the application of it to the church?
Judas was one of the twelve, in the church.
Paul says there is aposatcy first before the sone of perdition.
Apostacy is within the church. Not outside.
There we have, in three places, the common subject of the church.
We apply the AOD with the AC.....why?
Jesus didn't day a man possesed by Satan will stand up in politics and desecrate the temple did He?
No...he just said you will see the AOD, like what Daniel spoke of.
But what did Daniel speak of? Was it AEIV, or was it the church?
Was it the priests, or was it a political leader?
Throughout the Old Testament and New, we see the Jewish religious system, continuously desecrate the temple and God's Holy ground with abominations. Only until Christ, did God replace the temple with His Son.
Now we can convene with Him without a building.
Now why would Jesus contradict himself if He was speaking of a building? He is the Temple.
He was speaking to His diciples...Christians.
So let's say he was speaking of building, the temple they were all looking at. What was He likening to in Daniel?
Was it again, AEIV, or was it the High Priest Onias III ?
Why did Luke say something completely different that of Matthew and Mark?
Is the AOD of the Olivet Discourse is past tense, only dealing with what the High Priest Phannias ben Samuel?
Christ refers the disciples to that prophecy of Daniel, so that they might see how the ruin of their city and temple was spoken of in the Old Testament, which would both confirm his prediction for the coming generation in which it was fulfilled by our Father hand in judgement.

[nike]

So, in simple, clear English, what was Jesus telling the disciples to look for and to flee from?

[IamtheWalrus]

From apostacy. The same message goes for all of us.

[nike]

Thanks, Iamthewalrus. I agree with the conclusion to flee apostasy.
I disagree with the symbolic interpretation of Daniel and Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. I prefer to be more literal with many things you wrote - i.e. I don't see Luke as saying something "completely different." I believe the AC will desecrate the Temple with the support of armies...not a far stretch, but a literal interpretation.

Thanks for taking the time to share your view with me.

[IamtheWalrus]

Good enough...I believe in the literal as well, just not it alone. The AOD Jesus referring to had its past fulfillment, but will most likely have an end time fulfillment. The question for you is, is it applied to the Jews, or believers in Christ? That is the question many of you must search out.

If Christian, then it is of no building, but of the heart.
If Jew, then it is a building.

The covenant of CHRIST does not change for the Jew...they will come to know Him for who He is, not through their old system, but through the system we know of as saints.

[WallDoctor]

Nike, I am not disagreeing with you, but I'm a bit confused. How is it that the covenant is not literal simply because it's God's covenant with man and not one between men and men? To me it's not an issue of whether it's literal or not but whether we have the right literal explanation. (I'm asking about the covenant and not the temple so as not to complicate things.)

[nike]

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week - a seven year covenant. When have you ever seen a time limit on God's covenant with man? Especially the New Covenant? I know there are many covenants in scripture - God to man as well as man to man. But the seven year limit I believe nullifies this from representing the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

[kazbo]

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week - a seven year covenant. When have you ever seen a time limit on God's covenant with man? Especially the New Covenant? I know there are many covenants in scripture - God to man as well as man to man. But the seven year limit I believe nullifies this from representing the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

Exactly.

[WallDoctor]

Nike:

You are right and I hadn't thought of that until way after I started the thread. That's what proves it as an invalid contender for what the covenant will be. My original thought was to focus on the Antichrists intent to deceive by claiming to be a Christian (or Jew). But even that doesn't work because he would be planning to deceive by planning on being a fake christian for specifically 7 years and that sounds awkward and in truth that's not a true covenant anyway. To confirm it, the Antichrist would have to be a true Christian. As a good Calvinist I'd have to throw "Perseverance of the Saints" out the window if it was a real covenant.

I might throw out really strange or weird ideas as I continue to study this subject but I'm a drywaller and not a theologian so I don't expect that any idea I toss out is actually going to be original (it'll be scary if it is) or right. It's the way I think. If I don't tear something apart, I usually don't end up with a strong understanding of it. When I can't disprove something, that's when I become fully convinced that it is right. But don't misinterpret what might seem like wishy washyness or argumentativeness as anything other then me trying to prove you are right (by trying to prove you wrong). Confused?

[IamtheWalrus]

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week - a seven year covenant. When have you ever seen a time limit on God's covenant with man? Especially the New Covenant? I know there are many covenants in scripture - God to man as well as man to man. But the seven year limit I believe nullifies this from representing the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

Exactly.

I hold the literal, symbolic and spiritual interpretation of the 70 weeks of years, and the last seven years ended a long time ago. The view that these years are only symbolic is incorrect. It must be viewed in complete context with the situation Daniel was under, and the focus of the OT prophets, Jesus. The focus was the end of Israel as a God's chosen, forever, replaced with His own blood. But this isn't the debate forum, so if you would like to hear it, we need to go there.

[Pretzelogical]

It is a "seven"
-a week?
-seven months?
-seven years?
-seven sabbaths (49 years)?
-seven centuries?
-seven thousand years?

It is a "seven". We see throughout scripture that "seven" means complete, holy, God's perfect will, settled, no changing it. This passage is about a decree that cannot be changed. How the weeks, years, etc. work out is a whole different calculation thread.

In the middle of the seven, He, the Messiah the Prince, who is the Prince to come will be cut off, and He will put an end to the grain and drink offering.

Jesus is the Bread of life whose blood was poured out to confirm THE Covenant.
The man of lawlessness, the destroyer, will do the abomination of desolating believers.
When those in Judea see this desolation done by the man of lawlessness, they are to flee without grabbing a coat.

QUIZ Q
In Matthew 24, when Jesus is asked about the sign of His coming...
a.) Jesus said there will be an image set up in the temple by the anti-Christ which is the abomination of desolation
b) Jesus said when you see the abominatino of desolation, those in Judea flee!

Compare Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20:
"the abomination of desolation" = "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"

Context, context, context!
Daniel 9
v. 1 When in history
v. 2 "completion of the desolations of Jerusalem"
v. 3 Daniel sought God
v. 4 "God who keeps His covenant"
v. 5 confession of sin against commands, etc. (against the covenant)
v. 6 confession of not listening to God's prophets (speak the covenant)
v. 7 God righteous, all others do unfaithful deeds (against the covenant)
v. 8 "open shame" for sinning agaisnt God (against the covenant)
v. 9 God's compassion and forgiveness for rebelling against Him (against the covenant)
v.10 disobeyed "teachings which He set before us through" the prophets (speaking the covenant)
v.11 all Israel has had the curse poured out along with the oath (the covenant)
v.12 "Thus He has confirmed His words (the covenant) by bringing calamity - the worst ever. Calamity = God's covenant was confirmed when Jerusalem was made desolate and Israel was taken off into captivity just as God said would happen if they did not obey the covenant.
v.13 "As it is written in the law of Moses (the covenant), all this calamity" (Jerusalem desolated and people taken captive)
v.14 Therefore God brought the stored (decreed)calamity (desolation/captivity) for disobedience (breaking the covenant)
v.15 We have sinned against the God who is known by the Exodus for keeping His covenant v.16 "O Lord, in accordance with all Your righteous acts, let now Your anger and Your wrath turn away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; for because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people have become a reproach to all those around us.
Was God angry at the buildings of the city and the mountain? His wrath was against the people=the city=the holy mountain. (Like saying, "Indianapolis played a great game." It is understood to be people, not buildings.) Daniel has been confessing the national sins of the people against God's covenant in more than ten verses!
The context is the people have disobeyed the covenant!
v.17 "So now, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications, and for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary.
Now Daniel asks for blessings on "Your desolate sanctuary".
God had commanded, "Be holy for I am Holy." Holy = set apart for His purpose. Instead, the people (holy) were like all those around them. (Apostasy. Good for nothing but to be trampled just like unsalty salt.) The sanctuary was also in the temple. (Holy with a capital H) Nothing figurative about a holy people and their Holy God known by the name of the city.
v.18 "see our desolations and the city" Two things: #1 "our desolations" #2 "the city"
Desolations are against people.
v.19 "O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O my God, do not delay, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name."
Daniel confessed the people had disobeyed the covenant. Then He asked his compassionate God to forgive and take action to restore the people and the city for His Name's sake. Daniel knows God does not need to renew the covenant because God is faithful. Daniel confesses they have sinned against the covenant and He wants God to restore them and the city. God confirms this. God tells how He will confirm the covenant. God will say it. It will happen as God said it would.
v.20 "Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God,
v.21 Gabriel arrives to weary Daniel who is still "presenting supplication...in behalf of the holy mountain"
v.22 Gabriel says he will give insight with understanding
v.23 heed the message, gain understanding
v.24 seventy sevens decreed for the people and Daniel's holy city to:
-finish the transgression ("It is finished")
-make an end of sin (Wages of sin is death. O death, where is thy sting?)
-to make atonement for iniquity (He who knew no sin became sin for us. By His stripes we are healed.)
-to bring in everlasting righteousness (Thy kingdom come! To individuals now, and then in full reign at His second coming)
-to seal up vision and prophecy (The scriptures have all been written, but not all will be fulfilled until His second coming)
-to anoint the most holy place (Individuals now, but all of Israel when Jesus reigns)
(The first three were finished and made in Jesus first coming. When Jesus comes again, He will not only rule in the hearts of believers, but He will bring, seal up and anoint in full reign.)
v.25 Seven 7's and sixty-two 7's until "Messiah the Prince" (As promised in the covenant)
v.26 After sixty-two 7's:
- "the Messiah will be cut off"
-the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary What people? The people of the Prince. What Prince? Well, how many Princes have we had in this chapter? Just one! "The Messiah the Prince" who is to come. To insert another prince at this point makes absolutely no sense to the context! It would be a terrible interruption and misrepresentation of what is clearly understood and already meaningful in the text.
-"even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined."
v. 27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week,
Who is the only "He" in the passage? The only person being spoken of is the Messiah the Prince who is to come!
-but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering;
As the Lamb of God, Jesus' blood poured out put an end to the need of animal sacrifice. As the bread of life, unleavened, without sin, his body was given as a grain offering, there is no more grain offering needed either.
and on the wing of abominations
It was an abomination for His people reject and kill the Messiah the Prince ("destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again")
will come one who makes desolate,
and on the wing of that abomination will come one who makes desolate = the destroyer, the man of lawlessness, the anti-Christ. The one who makes desolate will do the abomination of destroying believers.
even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
The one who makes desolate will come to complete destruction as God decreed.

[Ready1]

As a good Calvinist I'd have to throw "Perseverance of the Saints" out the window if it was a real covenant.

You might want to rethink that anyway.

[WallDoctor]

As a good Calvinist I'd have to throw "Perseverance of the Saints" out the window if it was a real covenant.

You might want to rethink that anyway.

I guess I could rethink my position and stop being a Calvinist, but then I would be abandoning the truth. Nooo...I think I'll stay a Calvinist. But thanks for the advice!!!

[revelation12eleven]

Right on WallDoctor! I have been in a study of the sovereignty of God in salvation over the past year. Our salvation is secure, secure, secure!

[kazbo]

Pretzelogical wrote:

Jesus, the Promised Messiah, confirmed THE Covenant in His own blood.

But he didn't. He made a new covenant by his blood.

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20

The old covenant was made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

[IamtheWalrus]

Pretzelogical wrote:

Jesus, the Promised Messiah, confirmed THE Covenant in His own blood.

But he didn't. He made a new covenant by his blood.

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20

The old covenant was made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

The writing is on the wall kazbo, and you still deny?
Kazbo, Read Luke 13:6-9

Precisely one of the reasons why the Jews failed to see. It is obvious this covenant is new to us Gentiles, but to the Jew, it is a expansion of their covenant. All the OT prophets pointed to Jesus, this is one of them, but because Christ opened the door to everyone, Jews immediately discraded him. They should have listened more closely to their own prophets. Many, many, many, many.......this they missed entirely.

[kazbo]

Not sure what it is I'm denying?



(And yes, I read the passage you referenced.)

[IamtheWalrus]

That Christ is the only focus of Dan 9:24-27

[savedbygrace]

Daniel 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

27"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

If Jesus were the prince who is to come in vs26, it should have been written differently. It should have read "Then after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and have nothing, and HIS PEOPLE will destroy the city and the sanctuary. However, this was not the intended meaning of this passage. Thats why it was not written that way.

There is a distinction made between Messiah and the 'prince who is to come'. They are two different individuals. The second individual being referenced in vs 26 is the same individual in vs27 who confirms the covenant with many, brings an end to the sacrifice and drink offering, makes desolate, and has the end which is decreed poured out on him (i.e. Armageddon/lake of fire).

Welcome Walldoctor!

SBG

[IamtheWalrus]

From Matthew Henry, he is one of my favorites:

Hbr 10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

The passage is cited from Jer. 31:31, in which covenant God promises, 1. That he will pour out his Spirit upon his people, so as to give them wisdom, will, and power, to obey his word; he will put his laws in their hearts, and write them in their minds, v. 16. This will make their duty plain, easy, and pleasant. 2. Their sins and iniquities he will remember no more (v. 17), which will alone show the riches of divine grace, and the sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction, that it needs not be repeated, v. 18. For there shall be no more remembrance of sin against true believers, either to shame them now or to condemn them hereafter. This was much more than the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices could effect.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, 9), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ.

1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them; so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant. 2. What is the nature of this covenant in general: it is a new covenant and not according to the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt; not as if that made with them at Mount Sinai were a covenant of nature and innocency, such as was made with Adam in the day he was created; no, that was, for substance, a covenant of grace, but it was a dark dispensation of that covenant in comparison with this in gospel times. Sinners were saved by that covenant upon their repentance, and faith in a Messiah to come, whose blood, confirming that covenant, was typified by that of the legal sacrifices, Ex. 24:7, 8. Yet this may upon many accounts be called new, in comparison with that; the ordinances and promises are more spiritual and heavenly, and the discoveries much more clear. That covenant God made with them when he took them by the hand, as they had been blind, or lame, or weak, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke. It was God that made this covenant, but it was the people that broke it; for our salvation is of God, but our sin and ruin are of ourselves. It was an aggravation of their breach of it that God was a husband to them, that he had espoused them to himself; it was a marriage-covenant that was between him and them, which they broke by idolatry, that spiritual adultery.


There's plenty more......

[IamtheWalrus]

If Jesus were the prince who is to come in vs26, it should have been written differently. It should have read "Then after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and have nothing, and HIS PEOPLE will destroy the city and the sanctuary. However, this was not the intended meaning of this passage. Thats why it was not written that way.

It does read that way Jake....read the Hebrew.

There is a distinction made between Messiah and the 'prince who is to come'. They are two different individuals. The second individual being referenced in vs 26 is the same individual in vs27 who confirms the covenant with many, brings an end to the sacrifice and drink offering, makes desolate, and has the end which is decreed poured out on him (i.e. Armageddon/lake of fire).

There is no distinction Jake. The Hebrew is plain and simple...both are holy princes, the same term, defined in the Hebrew text.

[WallDoctor]

It is obvious this covenant is new to us Gentiles, but to the Jew, it is a expansion of their covenant.

So if it is only new to us Gentiles and it's only an expansion of what the Jews already had, then why would Hebrews say it is growing old and obsolete? Would not the point be that the old/first was only an inferior and inadequate picture of the real thing to come in Christ? The Old Covenant could not save.

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13

Or am I missing something you are saying?

[Pretzelogical]

Old Covenant:

...but you have to wait to open it until your birthday. I'll give you hints about what it is...
Do you believe I will give it to you on your birthday? Do you believe I have something you will like? Do you believe it is for you to keep? ...that it is for your good, not harm? ...that it is because I promised your parents I would give it to you?

New Covenant:

Hints are confirmed as true, but they are obsolete because you opened the gift.

I wrote another way too long post answering three questions from above, but lost it when I hit the submit button. God sure sure takes care of y'all!

I'll be back!

[savedbygrace]

If Jesus were the prince who is to come in vs26, it should have been written differently. It should have read "Then after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and have nothing, and HIS PEOPLE will destroy the city and the sanctuary. However, this was not the intended meaning of this passage. Thats why it was not written that way.

It does read that way Jake....read the Hebrew.

There is a distinction made between Messiah and the 'prince who is to come'. They are two different individuals. The second individual being referenced in vs 26 is the same individual in vs27 who confirms the covenant with many, brings an end to the sacrifice and drink offering, makes desolate, and has the end which is decreed poured out on him (i.e. Armageddon/lake of fire).

There is no distinction Jake. The Hebrew is plain and simple...both are holy princes, the same term, defined in the Hebrew text.

Am I missing something here??? The word used for Messiah in vs 26 is mashiyach, while the word used for 'prince who is to come' is nagiyd. Why do you insist they are describing the same person?

[IamtheWalrus]

Jake,

There is Messiah the "prince", and the people of the "prince" right?
Why would Daniel uses three separate words for Prince in his book, but in this passage, he used the same one?

[Pretzelogical]

Kazbo asked:

If Jesus confirmed the covenant, when specifically do you think he did?

The first half at His first coming, the second half is fulfilled in the believers now, and will be fulfilled to all the earth after He destroys the Destroyer.

Daniel 9:24 "...decreed for your people and your holy city,
to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy
and to anoint the most holy place.
25"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince..."

God had made a covenant to send the Messiah to provide a way for man to escape eternal death, because of sin that separates man from God This chapter has Daniel confessing those sins that lead the people to captivity. God reassures that He is faithful to save, and His covenant still stands, even though the people keep disobeying it. God tells Daniel, through Gabriel, that God will confirm the covenant in a very specific sign so that man can know God is faithful to the covenant, even though man is not.

Jesus fulfilled the covenant exactly as God said the Messiah would. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah. The New Testament explains this thoroughly, but I will just pull a few verses and color-match Jesus fulfillment of Daniel 9:24:
Jesus decalred, "It is finished!"
"Oh Death, where is thy sting?" "The wages of sin is death."
Hebrews 7:20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath
21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
"(THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'");
22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

The rest of the covenant is fulfilled in the hearts of believers. When Christ comes again, it will be fulfilled throughout the earth when the Destroyer is destroyed. Christ is our Guarantee of the new covenant sealed with the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30)
When all is complete, Jesus reigning in righteousness in a holy people He has made holy for Himself, then all the "sevens" will be fulfilled. "Seven" in scriptures represents completeness, perfection, holy. Daniel Chapter 9 speaks of how God is going to fulfill the covenants to make people holy, complete in Him. God fulfills/completes His covenant by sending the Messiah and King. The Messiah now reigns as King in the hearts of His own. At the end of the "sevens" all will be fulfilled/complete, and the Messiah, the Lamb of God who was slain to save the earth, He will rule all. [Save the earth (the people) vs save the planet (idol worship)]

[Pretzelogical]

Nike said:

I take things more at face value. When it says city, I think city, not the followers of God. Do you have biblical support that the followers of God are called the holy city?

Of course, sometimes the word "city" is a location. Even then, there is significance in scripture for naming the city.
We do not have to apply an outside idea of man to see the scriptures plainly teach that:
-where God dwells, that is the holy place
-God (Holy Spirit) dwells in believers
-Jesus is the temple raised in three days
-believers are the temple of God
-Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone with the prophets and believers built upon Him
-Christ is building a holy city, a new Jerusalem
-Jesus will bring the new Jerusalem with Him when He comes down from heaven.
-Believers are the citizens of a holy city.
-Believers are called after the holy city.
-Believers are called after the holy city, Jerusalem.

Isaiah 48:2
"For they call themselves after the holy city
And lean on the God of Israel;
The LORD of hosts is His name.

Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Believers = holy temple = holy city = lampstands = bride = wife of the Lamb = two witnesses = two olive trees

The holy city refers to a group of believers while the great city Babylon is a group of the unsaved.
When believers are building their own kingdoms the way Nimrod built Nineveh and Babylon, then idols are seated and ruling in the hearts of the believers. That is called apostasy.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

The apostasy will grow so strong that the faithful, steadfast believers who restrain the apostasy will be taken out of the way. Then God will destroy the man of lawlessness who destroyed His holy temple, the believers.

In scripture, groups of people are referred to as:
-cities
-streets,
-the sea
-the earth
We still do much of this today: "The city of Blankburg welcomes you!" The city is a group of people.
Streets are people on the move. Streets of gold = the righteous people are valuable and do valuable works in heaven.
We still refer to a multitude of people as a sea. The "sea of humanity" is vividly used in the scriptures.

From Matthew 22, the parable of the wedding feast, the invited guests did not come, so people from the highways were invited. Anyone not wearing wedding clothes, was thrown out. All are invited to enter in, but only those who will be clothed in the righteousness of Christ will remain. (Isaiah 61:10, Revelation 22:14) The law is clear that "in the city" is good, and "outside the city" is for abominations. When abominations take over a city, the city is destroyed. Not just the buidings, but the people of the city. Buildings (the city) do not sin, people (the city) do.

We see throughout scripture that mountains refer to kings/leaders and kingdoms/governments. Nations/Governments/Political Systems are harlots when unfaithful to God.
Nimrod built cities for building his own kingdom of idol-worship that lead to Nineveh, Babylon, the Great City, which consistently represents economic enterprises without God. (Beginning with Genesis 10:12)
The harlot of Revelation is a political alliance of mountains/leaders/kings who ride on the ecomomic system.
We are seeing this today with world leaders using the excuse of an economic collapse to say a one-world government with its own currency and one religion is the only solution. This is exactly what scripture said would happen.

Revelation 21:9-11
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.