Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered.Tell me, who opposes the daily sacrifices in this passage? The Son of God or the enemy of God?
--Dan. 8:8-12
And again:
"And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.So in this second passage, who takes away the sacrifices? The Son of God or the enemy of God?
--Dan. 11:31-32
And once more for giggles:
Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 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. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."So in this passage, who brings an end to sacrifice and offering? The Son of God . . . or the enemy of God?
--Dan. 9:24-27
I think it is the enemy of God in all three cases, but I have reservations on the third one.
Seven_0, don't rush to a conclusion before considering all the facts.
Finding the correct answer obviously depends on context and perspective. From God's perspective Jesus ended the sacrifice and offering as types or representations of His finished work of the cross. When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, symbolizing that man no longer approaches God through the agency of a sinful human priesthood, but rather through the blood of the eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (cf. Heb. 7).
At the same time God uses human agents to carry out His will from the human perspective. God used the Assyrians and Babylonians to judge ancient Israel. In this case God used the armies of Rome to once and for all time destroy the symbol of the old covenant sacrificial system, the temple in Jerusalem. So Daniel 9 is quite obviously centered around the work of Messiah, (cf. vv 25 & 26). Daniel 9 also never speaks of "the prince" directly. It speaks of the "people of the prince". That is one of the objects in v. 26.
"He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering ..." Christ ended the spiritual reality of the sacrifices by His death on the cross. Folks no longer needed to attend to the temple in order to experience Christ's redemptive forgiveness. The apostate Jews continued to go through the motion for another generation, believing they could find atonement with God by the blood of animals.
The "daily sacrifices" (Dan. 8 & 11) ended in AD70 when the armies of Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the last of the human temples that old Israel constructed.
So you see there is harmony in the passages. No need to invent a "gap" of several thousands years to explain what is quite simple to understand, and quite obvious once you read the New Testament.
Why do you have reservations on the third one?
And the fact is that every time Daniel speaks of someone ending sacrifice and offering, he speaks of it being done by the enemy of God and God's people. That's the context.
From God's perspective Jesus ended the sacrifice and offering as types or representations of His finished work of the cross.
You seem to have forgotten the rest of this thread, so let me remind you of a few more facts:
1) You have not been able to explain away God's eternal covenant with Phinehas' children, other than to question whether "eternal" and "forever" really mean eternal and forever. So your only answer to this is to say, "Has God really said . . . ?"When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, symbolizing that man no longer approaches God through the agency of a sinful human priesthood, but rather through the blood of the eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (cf. Heb. 7).2) You have not been able to explain the promise that God would always have Levites to be priests, other than to offer the fallacy of special pleading: God could preserve the Davidic line even though they didn't function as kings for 600 years, but He couldn't do the same for the Levite priestly line.
3) You have not been able to explain the clear and specific prophecy Ezekiel made of a new Temple officiated by the Messiah, other than to claim that it's all an allegory. From where I stand, any theology which has to fall back on claiming allegory every time it encounters a difficult passage is a pretty weak one.
4) You have not been able to show where Yeshua the Messiah, the only person with the authority to abridge any of the Torah commands given by God Himself, said that He would bring an end to sacrifice and offering, or indeed, that any of the "cultic" parts of the Torah should no longer be kept.
5) You have not been able to show that the Apostles, who were taught by Yeshua Himself, regarded the Torah or even the sacrificial system as over and done with. Indeed, you've no explanation for the fact that no less than Sha'ul himself was perfectly willing to take a Nazrite oath and make the animal sacrifices associated with it.
6) Your only source is the book of Hebrews. I have shown that it can be reconciled with these other passages; you insist that it must be taken as superceding them despite its annonymity. You have not yet provided any explaination for why we should accept an annonymous book that Yeshua never endorsed over the Scriptures that He did and the clear example of the Apostles if in fact there is a conflict between them.
True as far as it goes, but that nevertheless does not negate the other passages we've discussed. Indeed, Ezekiel demonstrates the reconcilliation by showing "the prince," the Messiah King, officiating over the Levites as the High Priest. We've also well established that sacrifices continue to have a worship and a memorial function even after the Cross--and I've even explained why that function is important both to the transformation of the cultural conciousness of the Jewish people today and to those who will enter or be born into the Millennium who will not have been Raptured with the Church.
In this case God used the armies of Rome to once and for all time destroy the symbol of the old covenant sacrificial system, the temple in Jerusalem.
While He did use Rome, in Scripture it is presented as being a temporary punishment for the disobedience of Israel in not receiving the Messiah, not as God's way of ending the sacrificial system forever (just as Babylon punished Israel for idolatry--but not forever). Indeed, He must revive it in order to keep all of His promises as I've explained here repeatedly.
Daniel 9 also never speaks of "the prince" directly. It speaks of the "people of the prince". That is one of the objects in v. 26.
Not true. After speaking of the "people of the prince who is to come" destroying Jerusalem, it says that "he"--a pronoun whose antecedant is "the prince who is to come"--will make or, literally, "make strong" a covenant with the many for the Seventieth Week. Nowhere in Scripture does any NT writer ascribe this action to Yeshua. Indeed, the prophecy itself puts this event after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and no subsequent historical event fits. This last "week" is therefore future.
Further, the prophecy itself is very specific:
Who will finish the transgression, according to the prophecy? Daniel's people, Israel, and Daniel's holy city, Jerusalem. Did they do so after the First Coming of the Messiah? If they did, why was Jerusalem destroyed?
Who will make an end to sins--that is, stop sinning against God--according to the prophecy? Again, Israel and Jerusalem. Not so you'd notice though, right?
I could hit all six specifics, but it isn't necessary. The fact is that this entire prophecy centers around the redemption of the whole nation of Israel and Jerusalem her capital. It is not some threat by God along the lines of, "You have just three and a half years to straighten up after the Messiah comes, or else!" and it's a perversion of Scripture to make it out that way.
Besides, you still haven't explained why, if the Apostles and other first-generation Christians believed that the sacrifices were done with, they voluntarily participated in them.
Further, the gap is implicit in the prophecy itself. The 69 Weeks have a starting point (the command to rebuild Jerusalem) and an ending point (the Messiah King comes). The 70th Week likewise has a starting point (the prince whose people--the Romans--destroyed the city makes a covenant with Israel) and an ending point (the redemption of Israel and Jerusalem). In between the ending point of the 69th Week and the start of the 70th, the prophecy states that there will be two more events: The execution of the Messiah, and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Thus, simply by reading the prophecy itself, we see a gap of at least forty years. The fact that it has gone much longer is no problem for the premillennialist, for God's time is not our time, and a thousand years to us is just a day to Him.
Two days isn't all that much of a gap. ;-)
Yes, we are all aware of your opinion on the subject. Facts are a different issue.
Not true. After speaking of the "people of the prince who is to come" destroying Jerusalem, it says that "he"--a pronoun whose antecedant is "the prince who is to come"--will make or,
Well, that was my point, which you apparently missed. The antecendent is not "the prince" it can only be "the people of the price" or "the Messiah", since those are the only two objects in the previous statement.
Look again at the verses:
"And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 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. "
Now "he" doesn't go with "the people of the prince", so the only reasonable conclusion is "the Messiah", which fits quite nicely with what we know from the NT about the finished work of Messiah. He ended the old covenant and introducted the new.
"This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many."
Who will finish the transgression, according to the prophecy? Daniel's people, Israel, and Daniel's holy city, Jerusalem.
Daniel's people?? That's not what the Hebrew says. It simply says that 70 weeks have been "marked out" or "determined" for Israel and the city. It does not say, in the Hebrew anyway, that Israel and the city would accomplish all these things. They are simply the evidence that all is being accomplished according to the prophecy. Otherwise, by your reading, we have salvation by the Jews and Jerusalem, not by the Messiah, Jesus Christ. But perhaps that is your view.
Your zeal is commendable, but misplaced. Inserting a gap of 2000+ years into a nice timeline won't really solve the problem. "Literally" the book of Daniel doesn't allow it. Reading Daniel in light of the NT is the only solution here.
My "opinion" is backed by Scripture. Yours is backed only by traditions of men. According to Scripture, which should we follow, topcat?
The antecendent is not "the prince" it can only be "the people of the price" or "the Messiah", since those are the only two objects in the previous statement.
Nope. The "prince" is still an antecedant. Imagine if I said, "The army of the President of the United States destroyed Al Qaida. And he made a treaty with Iraq . . ." Would you have any problem picking out the President as the antecedant to a singular, masculine pronoun, even if he was not the subject of the previous sentence? Of course not.
Neither do I have a problem picking out the antecedant of "he" in v. 26 in v. 25.
Further, it fits the pattern of the whole of the prophetic Scriptures. Just as Antiochus Epiphanes made a covenant with many in Israel, luring them over to Hellenized paganism, before finally desecrating the Temple, sacrificing a swine on the altar, and putting an end to sacrifice and offering while errecting the Abomination of Desolation, a false god (Zeus) in the Holy of Holies (Dan. 8:11-13, 23-25, and 11:21-32), so this prince who will make a covenant with Israel and then put an end to sacrifice and offering and cause the ultimate in Abominations will likewise be the Enemy of God.
Thus, Yeshua speaks of the Abomination of Desolation (a direct quote from Dan. 11:31) as being yet future and occuring right before His Second Coming (Mt. 24:15-31), and Sha'ul likewise refers to the Man of Sin desecrating the Temple and setting himself up as a false god within it just before the Second Coming (2 Th. 2:1-8).
It all fits together if you simply study the Scriptures without the unScriptural bias that God is over and done with the nation of Israel.
He ended the old covenant and introducted the new.
But He did not end the Torah, nor the Abrahamic Covenant, nor the Levitical or the Davidic (or for that matter, the Noahic--or do you think we need to invest in arks again?). Nor, from the actions of the Apostles did they understand Him to have ended even the Levitical sacrifices.
Daniel's people?? That's not what the Hebrew says. It simply says that 70 weeks have been "marked out" or "determined" for Israel and the city.
Soooo . . . you, the Calvinist, are proposing that God, who ordains everything by Hill will, set forth six goal that were frustrated by the will of Man? While I, the supposed Arminian, am saying that He will accomplish these six goals for Israel and Jerusalem exactly as written so that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:25).
Otherwise, by your reading, we have salvation by the Jews and Jerusalem, not by the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Don't be silly. All these goals will be realized for Israel and Jerusalem when they are reconciled to the Messiah, as Sha'ul spends three chapters of the book of Romans explaining. It's not even in the vaguest realm of being an either/or question.
"Literally" the book of Daniel doesn't allow it.
Please demonstrate how it doesn't then, since you've manifestly failed to do so thus far. Literally, Daniel speaks of the "prince who is to come" of the people who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD (the Romans) making a covenant for the last Week. Literally, the prophecy contains a gap, complete with a stopping point and subsequent starting point and events in between. Literally, the prophecy agrees with the teaching of Sha'ul that the same Israel which is the Church's enemy now for the sake of the Gospel will all be saved at some future date.
Claiming that it doesn't, as the amillennialists have, simply makes an incomprehensible mess out of both Testaments.
"Mess" seems to me like what happens when we don't take Jesus at His word that He has instituted a "new covenant" of grace and of not works. To miss the fact that Christ Himself is the only sacrifice that matters seems to miss the point of the New Testament entirely.
B.C./A.D.
"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." -- Hebrews 8:13
This is another example of your overblown statements, which I have, btw, responded to.
I'll give you the Cliff Notes version since we've been through it before.
There is possibly one (oblique) reference in the book of Acts that can be construed as the apostles participating the temple sacrifice rituals. That is the case of the vow in Acts 21. And that situation is limited by the narrative as to why Paul was doing what he was doing, e.g., to deal with the claims put forward by James and the others.
No other reference to the temple and the apostles give any overt indication of sacrifices being offered by Christian. None. Zero. Nada.
This claim is reminiscent of one I've heard regarding John 10:22,23 where it says, "Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch." Many people read into this passage that Jesus was somehow legitimizing Hanukkah as a divinely sanctioned holy day. He was not. It says nothing about His particular practice at the Feast of Dedication. He was in the temple as was His custom on a number of occasions.
Would you argue that being saved by grace means that it is okay to go out and lie, cheat, and steal? Of course not. Neither does it, in my mind, mean that it is okay to break God's other commandments, even the "silly" ones.
I do not seek to be Torah-observant so that I might be saved; I seek to Torah-observant because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior.
What is "decaying and waxing old and vanishing away," in your opinion?
Jesus was circumcised as a Jew. By virtue of His circumcision, He could participate fully in all the holy days, including the passover. In fact Jesus didn't celebrate ersatz holy days ala the rabbis. He celebated them as they were given in their entirety in the Old Testament according to Moses. He did this to fulfill all righteousness.
Isn't it true that as soon as you draw a line according to your traditions you stop trying to "be like Jesus"?
Of course the real answers is that Jesus doesn't require us to keep the temporary laws of Moses that were given to the chilren of Israel as a church under age. He does expect us to keep the law that was written by the finger of God on two tablets, and that He has written on the hearts of His children. These are the Ten Words. Nothing about food or clothing or bloody sacrifices and holy days, or pretend sacrifices and holy days for that matter.
The comment was made that the children of Israel did not or could not distinguish between the (eternal) moral law and the (temporary) ceremonial laws. This is patently not true, for why would Hosea write, "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings"? Jesus used Hosea when the Pharisees tried to slander Him to His disciples. "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?", they asked. Certainly they could tell the difference. One had eternal ramifications and the other didn't.
I notice that your Cliff Notes version contains just as little Scriptural merit as your longer version.
There is possibly one (oblique) reference in the book of Acts that can be construed as the apostles participating the temple sacrifice rituals.
Unless you recognize that by worshipping daily in the Temple they were automatically participating in the sacrificial rituals that would be going on in front of them, and that many priests became Nazarines--and there is no mention that they left their profession, which would be strange enough that its almost inconceivable that Luke wouldn't have recorded it. Indeed, if the Messianic community in Jerusalem and the area around it had in fact ceased to keep the Torah, it makes no sense that Luke wouldn't have noted it so as to show the Jewish and Gentile believers further away from Jerusalem how to understand their faith in Messiah by example!
In other words, your entire argument is based on the weakest sort of argument from silence.
And that situation is limited by the narrative as to why Paul was doing what he was doing, e.g., to deal with the claims put forward by James and the others.
And again, what was the nature of that claim? That he was teaching Jews not to circumcise (i.e., remain Jewish) and to forsake the Torah of Moses. Strangely enough, that's exactly what you claim. Sha'ul denied the charge, even going so far as to join others in a Nazrite oath--and again, Ya'akov (James) just happened to have four guys sitting around already under oath, so it apparently wasn't all that unusual a thing.
Either a) Sha'ul continued to observe Torah and thought it right to do so and you have misunderstood his writings, or b) he was an unabashed hypocrite, saying the Torah is bad to one group and engaging in "sacrificing the Messiah all over again" in order to make himself popular with the Jews. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, we've gone around in this circle about a dozen times already, and you have yet to provide a Scriptural answer. You instead simply assert your opinions as if they were fact, while I answer from the Scriptures.
No other reference to the temple and the apostles give any overt indication of sacrifices being offered by Christian.
Even if I had but one, you have zero references to the Apostles ceasing to keep Torah and take part in the Temple sacrifices, so I still win.
It says nothing about His particular practice at the Feast of Dedication. He was in the temple as was His custom on a number of occasions.
True enough, but on the other hand, it doesn't say that He disparaged or taught against the custom of keeping Haunukkah, either. I personally observe Haunukkah because I identify with Israel's victory over Antiochus by way of my adoption into the Messiah, and because Yeshua gave it His tacit approval. I do not, however, regard it as important as the seven Feastdays that God Himself gave at Sinai.
Besides, it gives me something to do during the Christmas season, since I know too much about the origins of that day and its customs to feel comfortable celebrating it--not to mention that Yeshua was born on Sukkot, not on the Winter Solstice. That's just me, though.
But again, this debate simply demonstrates the basic difference between our interpretive methods. I read the Tanakh as well as the NT, and if I do not see the NT specifically and directly teaching a change in a command or teaching of the Tanakh (such as transferring the High Priest's office from the Aaronic line to the Messiah), I regard the original command as still valid.
You ignore the Tanakh and demand that everything be restated in the NT before you will pay attention to it.
That's not the way the Apostles taught--indeed, Sha'ul's letters are meant as a Divinely-inspired commentary on the Tanakh, not a new and independant revelation. Just as you wouldn't tell someone to read a commentary without reading the Bible, neither should you try to read Sha'ul (or any NT epistle) without also reading and understanding the Tanakh that they based their teachings on.
When you pay attention to the whole council of God instead of just 1/5th of the package, you find a lot of interesting things that the Church as a whole tends to miss.
"What is "decaying and waxing old and vanishing away," in your opinion?"
It's not what, but who? I am!!! And by the minute.
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:20-22)
I am really pressed for time today at work. I will try to answer tonight, if I don't work all night. One question for you. I have said that I like the study of types. Have you considered the abomination of desolation to be a "type?" If so, what do you think the is the spiritual application or fulfillment?
It's interesting how you can twist around what the Bible doesn't say to support your theory into an argument from silence on my part. It's no wonder you are having difficulty reading and understanding the Bible.
The temple are was a big place. No sacrifices are mentioned. You say they were still actively participating in sacrifices without one word of support ... argument from silence from me.
I have to give you points for trying.
Another of your overblown statements. Unless you mean I don't read the version with all those annoying "Hoshea"s and "Yeshayah"s and "Yechezqel"s scattered about. "Tehillim and Mishlei and Iyov, Oy, vey."
Nope. Yeshua kept quite a few of the oral traditions; again, I've given the example of adding wine to the Passover dinner as an example. He had no problem with traditions per se; just with the ones which turned the Torah into a burden (such as the injunction against healing on the Sabbath) or which otherwise perverted it.
Further, you have no grounds to complain about traditions that do not contradict either the letter or Spirit of Scripture, such as fasting and otherwise denying one's self on Yom Kippur or saying certain prayers that go all the way back to the Second Temple (and which therefore the Messiah Himself would have prayed in synagogue), when you yourself keep traditions that do, such as moving the Sabbath to Sunday or baptizing infants.
For example, do you see me complaining about the tradition of many churches of building a steeple or putting a big cross behind the pulpit? No; that's a tradition perfectly in keeping with Scripture. I don't even care if one by tradition meets to worship on Sunday (any more than I object to Wed. night worship service)--but that doesn't make Sunday the Sabbath.
For a counter-example, a person who puts up needlework and paintings containing passages of Scripture, to my mind, keeps the command to write God's Word "on the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates" without needing to do so in the traditional Jewish manner (putting up a mezuza).
A person who wears a WWJD bracelet or other jewelry designed to remind them of God's will through the day fulfills the spirit, if not the letter, of the command to wear tzitzitot, and I have no quarrel with them at all on that basis.
I myself keep the non-Jewish tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving, because it is a holiday without pagan influences which praises God for His bounty (actually, I've been told that the Pilgrims may have based it on Sukkot, but that's again something I've not had the chance to check out on my own).
The issue is not simply keeping traditions; we all have them. The issue is whether you are willing to continually subject your traditions to Scripture and adjust or do away with them when you discover a contradiction. I am, and that's why I became Messianic. My congregation is, and that's why every year you would notice little differences in the liturgy and so on, as we continue to test our own traditions and adjust them. For example, the traditional Jewish candle-lighting blessing, done right before Shabbat, is:
Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified (not "saved," notice) us by Your commandments and who has commanded us to kindle the Sabbath lights.One small problem: Nowhere in Scripture are we commnaded to light candles to greet the Sabbath. That's a man-made tradition which, by claiming to be a command, actually violates God's command not to add to the Torah. When someone pointed this out, we adjusted. Now we pray together:
Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified (again, not "saved") us by Your commandments and who has given us Yeshua our Messiah, the Light of the World.It's a small change, but it does away with claiming as a commandment something which clearly is not a commandment in Scripture, and thus avoids the sin of adding to or subtracting from God's Word.
Heck, despite having to deal with your group consistantly pulling out the heretic card, I continually bring my new thoughts and musings here and ask that anyone who has a Scriptural argument against them show me the error. Why? Because it's the best way I've found to keep myself honest as I continue to grow in my walk and develop my theology. When you exhaust your Scriptural counter-arguments and start resorting to petty logical tricks and hiding behind the weight of traditonal opinion, I know that whatever I've thrown onto the field is reasonably solid, if not necessarily without need for fine-tuning.
In any case, let's get beyond the vague. You keep talking about rabbincal traditions with distaste, but you've not actually offered any solid examples yet. So tell me, what rabbinical traditions do you think I'm keeping on, say, tonight's Yom Kippur, which are contradicted by Scripture?
(It'll be interesting to see what you draw from your imagination--since you have not even asked what I will be doing for Yom Kippur, and therefore could not possibly be arguing from fact.)
P.S. Because tonight is Yom Kippur, I will probably abstain from responding until tomorrow night at least. You can take your time answering, or fire off another knee-jerk tirade just to give it that much more time on the screen without a response. It's up to you.
Your entire claim that you should not observe God's appointed times revolves around the (disputable) idea that since they aren't directly mentioned in the NT (well, except for the Gospels, and 1 Corinthians, and Acts, and Hebrews, and everywhere else that "Sabbath" is mentioned . . .), then God doesn't want us to observe them anymore.
Your entire claim that no more animal sacrifices should be offered ever is even weaker, since I've shown where they were still offered by NT believers.
The NT without the Tanakh is like a forty-story office building without a foundation--and without the first 35 floors, for that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.