Daniel 9:27

[JM]

REFORMED / CALVINISTS ONLY

Who do you believe is the one making the covenant in this passage? Who is 'he?' Is it antichrist or Jesus Christ?

Normally I avoid discussing prophecy but it recently came up in conversation and so I thought I would revisit a few passages. I believe 'he' is Jesus Christ. He is the one making the covenant (Mat. 26.28, Rom. 15.8, Ga. 3.17). After 3.5 years of ministry Christ was crucified leaving the house of Israel 'desolate' (Mat. 23.38) as predicted.

As you can probably tell from my posts I consult the work of John Gill often and here are Gill's comments on the subject,

"a covenant should be confirmed with many; which is not to be understood of the Messiah's confirming the covenant of grace with many, or on account of all his people, by fulfilling the conditions of it, and by his blood and sacrifice, through which all the blessings of it come to them; for this is not for one week only, but for ever; but this is to be interpreted of the Roman people, spoken of in the latter part of the preceding verse; who, in order to accomplish their design to destroy the city and temple of Jerusalem, made peace with many nations, entered into covenant and alliance with them, particularly the Medes, Parthians, and Armenians, for the space of one week, or seven years; as it appears they did at the beginning of this week"

Just to round things out, John Calvin,

"The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader. Christ took upon him the character of a leader, or assumed the kingly office, when he promulgated the grace of God. This is the confirmation of the covenant of which the angel now speaks. As we have already stated, the legal expiation of other ritual ceremonies which God designed to confer on the fathers is contrasted with the blessings derived from Christ; and we now gather the same idea from the phrase, the confirmation of the covenant. We know how sure and stable was God’s covenant under the law; he was from the beginning always truthful, and faithful, and consistent with himself. But as far as man was concerned, the covenant of the law was weak, as we learn from Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31, 32.) I will enter into a new covenant with you, says he; not such as I made with your fathers, for they made it vain. We here observe the difference between the covenant which Christ sanctioned by his death and that of the Jewish law. Thus God’s covenant is established with us, because we have been once reconciled by the death of Christ; and at the same time the effect of the Holy Spirit is added, because God inscribes the law upon our hearts; and thus his covenant is not engraven in stones, but in our hearts of flesh, according to the teaching of the Prophet Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 11:19.) Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many But I cannot finished this exposition just now."


Thanks.

jm

 

[A New Dawn]

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe that "he" is the prince that shall come. The prince of the air.

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

It is why one of the vials of wrath (Revelation 16) is poured out in the air.

 

[JM]

A New Dawn, thanks for the post. Is there anything in Dan. 9 that would make you link 'prince' with the 'prince of the air?' In v.25 the prince is referred to as the anointed one or the Messiah. What changed between v.25 and v.27?

 

[A New Dawn]

It's not capitalized.

I don't believe that Christ would confirm a covenant to restart sacrifices in the temple, that's why.

 

[JM]

It's not capitalized.

I don't believe that Christ would confirm a covenant to restart sacrifices in the temple, that's why.

No, I agree, Christ would not reinstate the sacrificial offerings, that's for sure. Do you think this passage could refer to the decree of God made in Ezra 6.14 to rebuild the Temple?

I appropriate the help A New Dawn, it is pushing me to finally come up with a coherent eschatological view.

From Barnes Commentary:

Of the prince that shall come

The word “prince” here (נגיד nāgı̂yd) is the same which occurs in Dan_9:25, “Messiah the prince.” It is clear, however, that another prince is meant here, for

(a) it is just said that that prince - the Messiah - would be “cut off,” and this clearly refers to one that was to follow;

(b) the phrase “that is to come” (הבא habbâ') would also imply this.

It would naturally suggest the idea that he would come from abroad, or that he would be a foreign prince - for he would “come” for the purposes of destruction. No one can fail to see the applicability of this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power, after the Lord Jesus was put to death. If that was the design of the prophecy, or if it be admitted that the prophecy contemplated that, the language could not have been better chosen, or the prediction more exact. No one can reasonably doubt that, if the ancient Hebrews had understood the former part of the prophecy, as meaning that the true Messiah would be put to death soon after his appearing, they could not fail to anticipate that a foreign prince would soon come and lay waste their city and sanctuary.

 

[A New Dawn]

So are you placing the destruction of the temple and city during the 70th week, or does that fall into a gap between the 69th and 70th week of the prophecy?

 

[JM]

So are you placing the destruction of the temple and city during the 70th week, or does that fall into a gap between the 69th and 70th week of the prophecy?

I think so, not sure about that yet...but I don't see a reason to place a gap there. I see Matthew 24 has relating to the end of the age, not the end of the world, so Jesus rightly predicts the destruction of Jerusalem.

(I think )

 

[A New Dawn]

I have to say that the way it reads is that the last week starts after the desolations occur. Verse 27 implies that the desolations have occurred before the covenant for the final week is made. I really lean towards a gap being written into the prophecy.

 

[JM]

I'll continue to look into it, thanks.

 

[bsd058]

Perhaps Calvin's Commentary can give you some guidance.

Commentary on Daniel - Volume 2 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

He has portions pertaining to each verse in the last paragraph of this prophecy.

Start with verse 24 and read every lecture. If it is still unclear, then at least you can say you looked into it.

He thinks the Messiah to be the prince, too. I think it is, as well. But I'm still working through it for myself.

Also, this could have implications which favor the cessationist view of prophecy. Again, still working through this. I submitted a thread a while ago concerning this. There are many questions if Christ is the "prince to come" (which at that time, Christ was still yet to come).

1) What is the 1 week that he confirms a covenant for?
2) Can a covenant made by Christ ever be cut short (since he is God)?
3) Who are the people of the prince (Christ) that will trample down the temple (the gentiles, the church)?
Etc...

But I do think it fits best with the idea that Christ is the prince. It's just a very obscure passage to understand it either way in a consistent manner. Whether you take a Pre-millenial or Amillenial view of the passage.

I don't claim to have this passage figured out completely yet. Still researching the questions I have. That's a great thing about the Word of God. No matter how much we know about God and what He desires us to know, there will always be more!

 

[JM]

Good stuff folks, keep it coming...

Any thoughts on Barnes' Commentary? I find his comments on prophecy most helpful. I wish I bought his commentary on Revelation when I had the chance...I see you can get a once volume commentary for the NT. Maybe this will be the first book I buy (since getting an ereader) since 2011...maybe.

j

 

[JM]

"Albert Barnes is a learned and able divine, but his productions are unequal in value, the gospels are of comparatively little worth, but his other comments are extremely useful for Sunday School teachers and persons with a narrow range of reading, endowed with enough good sense to discriminate between good and evil. If a controversial eye had been turned upon Barnes's Notes years ago, and his inaccuracies shown up by some unsparing hand, he would never have had the popularity which at one time set rival publishers advertising him in every direction. His Old Testament volumes are to be greatly commended as learned and laborious, and the epistles are useful as a valuable collection of the various opinions of learned men. Placed by the side of the great masters, Barnes is a lesser light, but taking his work for what it is and professes to be, no minister can afford to be without it, and this is no small praise for works which were only intended for Sunday School teachers." --Spurgeon

I'll take Spurgeon's word for it.