We see that in Daniel 9 also between verses 26 and 27, with verse 27 referring to the end times when the false messiah will confirm the covenant with Israel and then will break it at the mid point.
There's no false messiah, explicit or implicit. There's only Messiah. And He breaks no covenant. He confirms the New Covenant in His Blood (Matthew 26:28), and in so doing causes cessation of the Old Covenant sacrifices and oblations.
Actually, Messiah the Prince in verse 25 should be translated Messiah the King. the Hebrew is nagid. The word was first used of King Saul.
The Hebrew "nagid" for prince is the same in verses 25 and 26. There is no difference explicit or implicit between the two. They both refer to Messiah.
And in verse 26, it says the people of prince "who is to come" will destroy the city and sanctuary. Not the prince himself.
Correct. The people of the prince Messiah were the Romans and the Jews, both of whom destroyed the city and sanctuary (see post #193).
It is not until verse 27 that the prince referred to in Verse 26 then shows up.
Messiah the prince shows up in verse 25.
And no "prince" confirmed "the covenant" with Israel for one week of years
At Calvary, Messiah confirmed His New Covenant, which began 3.5 years earlier with His own ministry to Israel, and continued 3.5 years thereafter with the disciples' ministry to Israel.
then abrogated it in the middle of that week of years
Correct. Christ did not abrogate the New Covenant which He had confirmed.
set himself up as the abomination of desolation referred to by Daniel and Yeshua.
The presence of the Roman armies in the holy city of Jerusalem was the abomination, and the destruction which they wrought brought desolation.
That comes later when the false messiah "confirms the covenant".
There is no false messiah who confirms a covenant. There is only Messiah who confirms His New Covenant. It is an everlasting covenant. (Hebrews 13:20)
Upvote
0