The Time Gap between Dan.9:26 and 27

[Quasar92]

My previous installment concluded the textual examination of Daniel 9:24-27. However, there are still other issues to deal with in relation to the passage and the postponement of the seventieth week from the first sixty-nine. These final articles will deal will a few concluding issues.

Critics of a Time Gap

Those who do not think that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 have a literal and chronologically precise fulfillment are opposed to the postponement of the seventieth week as a yet future time of seven years. Examples of such criticism can be found by those within the Reconstructionist movement, holding to a form of preterist postmillennialism. Gary DeMar complains:

Fellow preterist, Dr. Ken Gentry echoes DeMar’s refrain in the following:

Dr. Gentry is right about one thing, that the Daniel 9 passage is the only Messianic prophecy that specifically deal with chronology or the time element. While I believe that I have shown that the passage itself requires a chronological postponement between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years, it is also supported by other Messianic passages which are not specifically time oriented, but clearly do refer to distinct time-periods: Christ’s first coming and his second coming.

If anyone believes in the two comings of Christ, and both DeMar and Gentry do, then they also believe in a gap of time between the first and second coming of Christ. I want to show how this fits into a clear biblical pattern that in turn lends support to the notion of a gap of time in Daniel 9:24-27.

Two phases of Christ's career
It is obvious from the Bible that if you view the ministry or career of Christ in its entirety, then it is composed of two parts or phases. The first phase encompasses the first coming of Jesus two thousand years ago, while the second phase will consist of His second coming some time in the future. Yet many Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah commingled their descriptions of both phases of Christ into a single passage, without distinguishing between the two comings or phases of His earthly career.

It is commonly understood today that the Jews of the first century did not understand that these Old Testament prophecies spoke of a single Messiah who would come twice—once in humiliation, then again in glorious exaltation. We have learned that many Jews of Christ’s day thought that there would be two different Messiahs—Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. Messiah ben Joseph would be one who suffers and dies, but is immediately followed by Messiah ben David, who reigns in glory. The reality of Scripture is that there is but one Messiah—Jesus of Nazareth—who comes twice. This means that there is a gap of time between the two comings.

Even though preterists like DeMar and Gentry belittle a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, they are driven to believe in a gap of time between the two comings. DeMar and Gentry even believe in a gap, so far, of almost 2,000 years. Yet this time-gap is not explicitly stated in Scripture. So how can DeMar and Gentry hold to something like a gap of time that not explicitly stated in Scripture? Because the only possible implication that can be deduced from the facts of Christ’s two comings is that there is a time-gap between the two events. In like manner, such a time-gap must also follow from the fact that Christ has a career that is two-phased.

Why is this important to our study of the seventy weeks of Daniel? It is important, because as Gentry noted above, "An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies is that it is specifically designed to be a measuring time-frame." True, so true, Dr. Gentry. Yet, you believe in a gap of time between the two comings of Christ, even though it is not specifically stated in the Bible. In the same way, I would argue that all other Messianic passages that speak of the two aspects or phases of the career of Messiah also must imply that they are fulfilled at the two comings of Christ, . . . with a gap of time in between. This means that there are many similar passages that speak in a single statement of items that encompass both phases of Christ’s career—the first and second advents. However, as Dr. Gentry has noted, only the Daniel 9:24-27 passage deals specifically with measuring time. This explains why the Daniel passage is the only Messianic text that deals specifically with a time frame. However, a significant number of other Messianic passages have something in common with the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. They all speak of components of Christ’s career that will take place in the two phases of His two advents. Only the Daniel text speaks of time factors.

Two-Phased Messianic Passages

This means that it is legitimate to argue for a gap of time from the other Messianic passages that also include, in a single passage, the two elements of Christ’s career. Dr. Randall Price makes note of the way Scripture uses time gaps and provides a list of passages that fit into this category in the following statement:

Perhaps the most well-known example of the kind of prophecy about which I speak is found in Christ’s reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 as recorded in Luke 4:16-30. The passage reads as follows:

Tim LaHaye and I have a chart diagramming this passage in our new book called Charting the End Times. We say concerning this passage:

Another example of what some have called "double reference" is found in Zechariah 9:9-10. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum says concerning double reference:

In the same context we see that verse nine refers to Christ’s first coming:

Verse ten is a reference only to Christ’s second coming as follows:

In the Zechariah passage, there has to be a gap of time between the fulfillment of the verse nine that relates to Messiah’s first coming two thousand years ago, and His second advent, which is still a yet future event. Even though no time factor is explicitly stated in the text, because of the specific nature of the events described in the two verses, a gap of time is required to coordinate the fulfillment of this prophecy with the events of history.

Conclusion

The point that I am making in this article, relating to the seventy weeks of Daniel prophecy, is that it is not unreasonable to find implied time gaps in a significant number of Messianic passages in the Old Testament. I am not saying that this proves that there is in fact a gap in Daniel 9:24-27, I believe that I have demonstrated that in the earlier installments in this series. I think that this article demonstrates that it is not unreasonable to expect a Messianic passage that requires a time-gap between the fulfillment of all events prophesied in that passage. This supports our literal interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. Maranatha!

By Thomas Ice, PhD



Quasar92

 

[BABerean2]

My previous installment concluded the textual examination of Daniel 9:24-27. However, there are still other issues to deal with in relation to the passage and the postponement of the seventieth week from the first sixty-nine. These final articles will deal will a few concluding issues.

Critics of a Time Gap

Those who do not think that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 have a literal and chronologically precise fulfillment are opposed to the postponement of the seventieth week as a yet future time of seven years. Examples of such criticism can be found by those within the Reconstructionist movement, holding to a form of preterist postmillennialism. Gary DeMar complains:

Fellow preterist, Dr. Ken Gentry echoes DeMar’s refrain in the following:

Dr. Gentry is right about one thing, that the Daniel 9 passage is the only Messianic prophecy that specifically deal with chronology or the time element. While I believe that I have shown that the passage itself requires a chronological postponement between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years, it is also supported by other Messianic passages which are not specifically time oriented, but clearly do refer to distinct time-periods: Christ’s first coming and his second coming.

If anyone believes in the two comings of Christ, and both DeMar and Gentry do, then they also believe in a gap of time between the first and second coming of Christ. I want to show how this fits into a clear biblical pattern that in turn lends support to the notion of a gap of time in Daniel 9:24-27.

Two phases of Christ's career
It is obvious from the Bible that if you view the ministry or career of Christ in its entirety, then it is composed of two parts or phases. The first phase encompasses the first coming of Jesus two thousand years ago, while the second phase will consist of His second coming some time in the future. Yet many Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah commingled their descriptions of both phases of Christ into a single passage, without distinguishing between the two comings or phases of His earthly career.

It is commonly understood today that the Jews of the first century did not understand that these Old Testament prophecies spoke of a single Messiah who would come twice—once in humiliation, then again in glorious exaltation. We have learned that many Jews of Christ’s day thought that there would be two different Messiahs—Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. Messiah ben Joseph would be one who suffers and dies, but is immediately followed by Messiah ben David, who reigns in glory. The reality of Scripture is that there is but one Messiah—Jesus of Nazareth—who comes twice. This means that there is a gap of time between the two comings.

Even though preterists like DeMar and Gentry belittle a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, they are driven to believe in a gap of time between the two comings. DeMar and Gentry even believe in a gap, so far, of almost 2,000 years. Yet this time-gap is not explicitly stated in Scripture. So how can DeMar and Gentry hold to something like a gap of time that not explicitly stated in Scripture? Because the only possible implication that can be deduced from the facts of Christ’s two comings is that there is a time-gap between the two events. In like manner, such a time-gap must also follow from the fact that Christ has a career that is two-phased.

Why is this important to our study of the seventy weeks of Daniel? It is important, because as Gentry noted above, "An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies is that it is specifically designed to be a measuring time-frame." True, so true, Dr. Gentry. Yet, you believe in a gap of time between the two comings of Christ, even though it is not specifically stated in the Bible. In the same way, I would argue that all other Messianic passages that speak of the two aspects or phases of the career of Messiah also must imply that they are fulfilled at the two comings of Christ, . . . with a gap of time in between. This means that there are many similar passages that speak in a single statement of items that encompass both phases of Christ’s career—the first and second advents. However, as Dr. Gentry has noted, only the Daniel 9:24-27 passage deals specifically with measuring time. This explains why the Daniel passage is the only Messianic text that deals specifically with a time frame. However, a significant number of other Messianic passages have something in common with the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. They all speak of components of Christ’s career that will take place in the two phases of His two advents. Only the Daniel text speaks of time factors.

Two-Phased Messianic Passages

This means that it is legitimate to argue for a gap of time from the other Messianic passages that also include, in a single passage, the two elements of Christ’s career. Dr. Randall Price makes note of the way Scripture uses time gaps and provides a list of passages that fit into this category in the following statement:

Perhaps the most well-known example of the kind of prophecy about which I speak is found in Christ’s reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 as recorded in Luke 4:16-30. The passage reads as follows:

Tim LaHaye and I have a chart diagramming this passage in our new book called Charting the End Times. We say concerning this passage:

Another example of what some have called "double reference" is found in Zechariah 9:9-10. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum says concerning double reference:

In the same context we see that verse nine refers to Christ’s first coming:

Verse ten is a reference only to Christ’s second coming as follows:

In the Zechariah passage, there has to be a gap of time between the fulfillment of the verse nine that relates to Messiah’s first coming two thousand years ago, and His second advent, which is still a yet future event. Even though no time factor is explicitly stated in the text, because of the specific nature of the events described in the two verses, a gap of time is required to coordinate the fulfillment of this prophecy with the events of history.

Conclusion

The point that I am making in this article, relating to the seventy weeks of Daniel prophecy, is that it is not unreasonable to find implied time gaps in a significant number of Messianic passages in the Old Testament. I am not saying that this proves that there is in fact a gap in Daniel 9:24-27, I believe that I have demonstrated that in the earlier installments in this series. I think that this article demonstrates that it is not unreasonable to expect a Messianic passage that requires a time-gap between the fulfillment of all events prophesied in that passage. This supports our literal interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. Maranatha!

By Thomas Ice, PhD



Quasar92

From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America

.................................................................
Daniel 9:27

And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

...............................................................

Who Confirmed The Covenant?
James Lloyd
http://christianmediaresearch.com/node/1023

...................................................................

Critics of a time gap are found below...


Jesus commands His disciples to take the Gospel to the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel for three and one half years of His earthly ministry.

Mat 10:5　 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:　
Mat 10:6　 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.　
Mat 10:7　 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.　

There was a time period from the ascension of Christ to the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Paul.

Gal 1:14　 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.　
Gal 1:15　 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,　
Gal 1:16　 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:　
Gal 1:17　 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.　
Gal 1:18　 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.　


Based on the verse above, it was three years between the conversion of Paul and the time he took the Gospel to the Gentiles.

The Gospel was taken to Israel for about 7 years, before it was taken to the Gentiles.

It is something not even Dr. Ice can deny.

 

[Quasar92]

From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America

.................................................................
Daniel 9:27

And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

...............................................................

Who Confirmed The Covenant?
James Lloyd
http://christianmediaresearch.com/node/1023

...................................................................

Critics of a time gap are found below...


Jesus commands His disciples to take the Gospel to the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel for three and one half years of His earthly ministry.

Mat 10:5　 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:　
Mat 10:6　 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.　
Mat 10:7　 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.　

There was a time period from the ascension of Christ to the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Paul.

Gal 1:14　 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.　
Gal 1:15　 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,　
Gal 1:16　 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:　
Gal 1:17　 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.　
Gal 1:18　 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.　


Based on the verse above, it was three years between the conversion of Paul and the time he took the Gospel to the Gentiles.

The Gospel was taken to Israel for about 7 years, before it was taken to the Gentiles.

It is something not even Dr. Ice can deny.

None of which alters a stitch of the OP content that comes from an esteemed and qualified theologian and expositor.


Quasar92

 

[Another Lazarus]

We are currently at the Present Church Age not known to Daniel.

Eph 3:5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

The remaining one week (70th week) is the Grief Tribulation where antichrist will make a 7 years Peace Deal between Israel-Arab.

Dan 9 27.He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

 

[jgr]

We are currently at the Present Church Age not known to Daniel.

Acts 3
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Peter speaking at the temple subsequent to the birth of the New Testament Church in Acts 2.

 

[Another Lazarus]

Acts 3
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Peter speaking at the temple subsequent to the birth of the New Testament Church in Acts 2.

When Peter spoke about this the Gentiles were not yet accepted.

 

[jgr]

When Peter spoke about this the Gentiles were not yet accepted.

That didn't prevent the Church's birth, nor the prophets' predictions thereof.

 

[Another Lazarus]

That didn't prevent the Church's birth, nor the prophets' predictions thereof.

The point is, as Paul said, their older generation have no idea that the gentiles will inherit the Gospel.

 

[jgr]

The point is, as Paul said, their older generation have no idea that the gentiles will inherit the Gospel.

That had no bearing on the birth of the Church, nor the prophets' prediction of it.

 

[Copperhead]

I could be reading some posts wrong, but I kind of get the idea that some think it was Messiah who is confirming the covenant in Daniel 9:27.

The person confirming the covenant is the immediate preceding person, the prince of the people who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And that same person is mentioned in Daniel 11:22.

 

[Quasar92]

I could be reading some posts wrong, but I kind of get the idea that some think it was Messiah who is confirming the covenant in Daniel 9:27.

The person confirming the covenant is the immediate preceding person, the prince of the people who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And that same person is mentioned in Daniel 11:22.

Who is the "He" in Dan.9:27?

(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to comein the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note).

It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ.

We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming princehas his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision...

And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)

(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ.

Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing...

Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse.

How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside) (Logos) (Wordsearch)

Ray adds...

In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)

(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - [font='TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES][URL='[URL="http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm#3']See"]Background on Daniel 9:24-27 | Precept Austin[/URL] list of other Non-Christological Interpreters[/URL][/font]) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12,13, 14, 15).

(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation.

In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character.

For the complete article: Daniel 9:27 Commentary | Precept Austin


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

Who is the "He" in Dan.9:27?

(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to comein the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note).

It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ.

We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming princehas his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision...

And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)

(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ.

Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing...

Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse.

How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside) (Logos) (Wordsearch)

Ray adds...

In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)

(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - [font='TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES][URL='[URL="[URL="http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm#3']See"]Background on Daniel 9:24-27 | Precept Austin[/URL]"]Background on Daniel 9:24-27 | Precept Austin[/URL] list of other Non-Christological Interpreters[/URL][/font]) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12,13, 14, 15).

(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation.

In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character.

For the complete article: Daniel 9:27 Commentary | Precept Austin


Quasar92

Who makes the covenant with many in Dan.9:27

Daniel 9:27 (HCSB) He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.”

The question is, who is the he? The traditional view of this passage is that "he" here refers to the Antichrist. The Antichrist will a covenant and stop sacrifices that at some point a future will resume, and set up the Abomination of Desolation.

Preterists say that he refers to the real Christ; Jesus Christ is actually the one that causes sacrifices to stop by sacrificing himself. As far as the overspreading of abominations I don't know how they explain that.

Confirmer of the Covenant Confirmed Elsewhere

So how do we know who the he is? We can know for sure who he is. The he of Daniel 9:27 does three things: he first confirms the covenant, he stops the daily sacrifices, and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation.

In Daniel 11 we have a discourse about the King of the North. When you get to verse 31, it talks about the Antichrist and his partners placing a abomination that makes desolate and stopping the sacrifices. This is absolute proof that the he of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist not the real Christ.

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

If you're not sure this is the Antichrist, read on what else this man does:

Daniel 11:36 (KJV) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

For the complete article:

http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/...n-covenant.htm

Annotation from the 1967 edition of the Scofield Bible:

The proof that this final week has not yet been fulfilled is seen in the fact that Christ definitely relates its main events to His second coming [Mt.24:6-15]. Hence, during the interim between the 69th and the 70th weeks there must lie the whole period of the Church set forth in the N.T. but not revealed in the O.T. The interpretation which assigns the last of the 70th weeks to the end of the age is found in the Church fathers. When this 70th week was referred to during the first two and one-half centuries of the Christian Church, it was almost always assigned to the end of the age. Irenaeus places the appearance of the Antichrist at the end of the age in the last week: in fact, he asserts that the time of the Antichrist's tyranny will last just one-half of the week, three years and six months. So likewise Hippolytus states that Daniel "indicates the showing forth of seven years which shall be in the last times."

Endorsed by the following:

1. Frank L. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D., Headmaster Emiritus, The Stoney Brook School; 2. William Culbertson, D.D., L.L.D., President, Moody Bible Institute; 3. Charles L. Feinberg, ThD., PhD., Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary; 4. Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M., PhD., President, Biblical School of Theology; 5. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D., Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible; 6. Alva J. Mc Clain, Th.M., D.D., President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary; 7. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., Editor, Peloubet's Select Notes; 8. John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D., President, Dallas Theological Seminary; 9. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Editor, Scofield Bible; 10. Editorial Committee Chairman, J. E. Schuyler English, Litt.D.


Quasar92

 

[Copperhead]

I would have to disagree with some of those "scholars" that Messiah's crucifixion caused the sacrifice (zebah) and offering (minha) to cease. Paul was instructed by the Jerusalem council to go make the purification offering (minha) at the temple to show that he had not thrown Moses and the Torah under the bus in his theology. And Paul was complying with that directive when he was arrested. Acts 21.

And Antiochus did not destroy the city and the sanctuary. The temple was still there for it to be rededicated after the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus.

Just because one has some H2SO4 degree behind his name does not mean he is right.

And "the people of the prince" in Dan 9:26 refers to Titus son of Vespasian. Vespasian, his father, was initially put in charge of suppressing the Jewish revolt, but was appointed emperor in 69AD upon the death of Nero, thereby making Titus essentially a prince. "The people" therefore is the Romans, who in fact were the ones who totally destroyed the temple and plowed it under so that not one stone would be left standing upon another, per Yeshua's prediction.

No, the present so-called "temple mount" area in Jerusalem was not the location of the temple in Yeshua's day. What many consider the "wailing wall" / Dome of the Rock temple area remains are the remains of the Roman garrison facility. Archaeology has shown that the original temple was located a little further away at the official "city of David" area where the Gihon spring is, the only source of continuous flowing fresh water in the immediate area, which would be required for ritual purification and animal sacrifice. There is no natural water source in the area some consider today as the temple area.

I agree, the "he" in Dan 9:27 is the future false messiah. Any other interpretation makes no sense, and one has to do some real scriptural gymnastics to come to any other conclusion.

"Messiah the Prince" is a poor translation of the passage. It should say "Messiah the King". The Hebrew "nagid" was first used in calling Saul the King. Using it as "prince" regarding Titus is not an ideal translation, though Titus was a prince, since the word can also be used to reference a commander, and Titus was that.

That is the problem when trying to make doctrinal assertions using a translation from the original.

 

[Quasar92]

I could be reading some posts wrong, but I kind of get the idea that some think it was Messiah who is confirming the covenant in Daniel 9:27.

The person confirming the covenant is the immediate preceding person, the prince of the people who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And that same person is mentioned in Daniel 11:22.

Regarding Dan.9:26 pertaining to the prince to com:

"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".

First of all, the people of the prince to come who destroy the city and the sanctuary, was the Roman army.

In the second place, since the people was the Roman army, of the prince to come, He was their general Titus. Not the Antichrist as many expositors attempt to make of Him, to reinforce the identity of the "he" who makes a covenant with many, in verse 27.


Quasar92

 

[jgr]

Who makes the covenant with many in Dan.9:27

Daniel 9:27 (HCSB) He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.”

The question is, who is the he? The traditional view of this passage is that "he" here refers to the Antichrist. The Antichrist will a covenant and stop sacrifices that at some point a future will resume, and set up the Abomination of Desolation.

Preterists say that he refers to the real Christ; Jesus Christ is actually the one that causes sacrifices to stop by sacrificing himself. As far as the overspreading of abominations I don't know how they explain that.

Confirmer of the Covenant Confirmed Elsewhere

So how do we know who the he is? We can know for sure who he is. The he of Daniel 9:27 does three things: he first confirms the covenant, he stops the daily sacrifices, and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation.

In Daniel 11 we have a discourse about the King of the North. When you get to verse 31, it talks about the Antichrist and his partners placing a abomination that makes desolate and stopping the sacrifices. This is absolute proof that the he of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist not the real Christ.

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

If you're not sure this is the Antichrist, read on what else this man does:

Daniel 11:36 (KJV) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

For the complete article:

http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/...n-covenant.htm

Annotation from the 1967 edition of the Scofield Bible:

The proof that this final week has not yet been fulfilled is seen in the fact that Christ definitely relates its main events to His second coming [Mt.24:6-15]. Hence, during the interim between the 69th and the 70th weeks there must lie the whole period of the Church set forth in the N.T. but not revealed in the O.T. The interpretation which assigns the last of the 70th weeks to the end of the age is found in the Church fathers. When this 70th week was referred to during the first two and one-half centuries of the Christian Church, it was almost always assigned to the end of the age. Irenaeus places the appearance of the Antichrist at the end of the age in the last week: in fact, he asserts that the time of the Antichrist's tyranny will last just one-half of the week, three years and six months. So likewise Hippolytus states that Daniel "indicates the showing forth of seven years which shall be in the last times."

Endorsed by the following:

1. Frank L. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D., Headmaster Emiritus, The Stoney Brook School; 2. William Culbertson, D.D., L.L.D., President, Moody Bible Institute; 3. Charles L. Feinberg, ThD., PhD., Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary; 4. Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M., PhD., President, Biblical School of Theology; 5. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D., Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible; 6. Alva J. Mc Clain, Th.M., D.D., President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary; 7. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., Editor, Peloubet's Select Notes; 8. John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D., President, Dallas Theological Seminary; 9. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Editor, Scofield Bible; 10. Editorial Committee Chairman, J. E. Schuyler English, Litt.D.


Quasar92

It is Christ who confirms the covenant with many:

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

Matthew 26
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The prince is Messiah throughout, Daniel 9:25-27. The people of the prince refers to the Roman armies which were Christ's vehicles and instruments to accomplish the destruction which He had prophesied. God's use of such instruments, and His characterization of them as "mine" even though pagan, can be found in several OT instances e.g.:

Jeremiah 25
9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

Jeremiah 43
10 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

God characterizes the pagan Nebuchadnezzar as "my servant" in using him and his armies against Judah and Egypt. In the same way as Nebuchadnezzar, though a pagan, was God's servant in executing His judgment, so too were the pagan Roman armies Christ's people in accomplishing His purposes.

There is another legitimate sense wherein the Jews themselves, as the people of Prince Messiah, were equally responsible for the judgment that ultimately befell them. Their own actions in defiling the temple prior to the Roman invasion are described by Josephus:

The Lamentation of Josephus
War 5.1.4 19-20

The darts that were thrown by the engines [of the seditious factions] came with that force, that they went over all the buildings and the Temple itself, and fell upon the priests and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, with their own blood. The dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves.
Oh most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy internal pollutions! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou longer survive, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own people, and hast made the Holy House itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction.


As seen, Josephus recognizes the Jews as agents of their own destruction, and that destruction as divinely orchestrated.


Thus Daniel 9:25-27 is descriptive of historically fulfilled prophetic events in which our Lord confirmed His covenant, and fully accomplished all of His purposes as described by His prophet Daniel.

 

[Quasar92]

It is Christ who confirms the covenant with many:

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

Matthew 26
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The prince is Messiah throughout, Daniel 9:25-27. The people of the prince refers to the Roman armies which were Christ's vehicles and instruments to accomplish the destruction which He had prophesied. God's use of such instruments, and His characterization of them as "mine" even though pagan, can be found in several OT instances e.g.:

Jeremiah 25
9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

Jeremiah 43
10 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

God characterizes the pagan Nebuchadnezzar as "my servant" in using him and his armies against Judah and Egypt. In the same way as Nebuchadnezzar, though a pagan, was God's servant in executing His judgment, so too were the pagan Roman armies Christ's people in accomplishing His purposes.

There is another legitimate sense wherein the Jews themselves, as the people of Prince Messiah, were equally responsible for the judgment that ultimately befell them. Their own actions in defiling the temple prior to the Roman invasion are described by Josephus:

The Lamentation of Josephus
War 5.1.4 19-20

The darts that were thrown by the engines [of the seditious factions] came with that force, that they went over all the buildings and the Temple itself, and fell upon the priests and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, with their own blood. The dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves.
Oh most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy internal pollutions! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou longer survive, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own people, and hast made the Holy House itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction.


As seen, Josephus recognizes the Jews as agents of their own destruction, and that destruction as divinely orchestrated.


Thus Daniel 9:25-27 is descriptive of historically fulfilled prophetic events in which our Lord confirmed His covenant, and fully accomplished all of His purposes as described by His prophet Daniel.

No it is not Jesus who confirms a covenant with many, in Da,9:27. You don't seek the Scriptural truth, but rather, support for your own belief system.

Jesus does not make any seven year covenants, but rather, the eternal New Covenant. Not does He set up the AOD in the temple, nor stop the sacrificing there. It continued on for another 40 years before the temple was destroyed. Posts #11 and #12 regute you.


Quasar92

 

[Copperhead]

Josephus was a general and historian. Not a expositor of scripture. And even if he was, he would be wrong.

 

[Copperhead]

No it is not Jesus who confirms a covenant with many, in Da,9:27. You don't seek the Scriptural truth, but rather, support for your own belief system.

Jesus does not make any seven year covenants, but rather, the eternal New Covenant. Not does He set up the AOD in the temple, nor stop the sacrificing there. It continued on for another 40 years before the temple was destroyed. Posts #11 and #12 regute you.


Quasar92

Well, thanks for not including post #13! Just kidding. LOL

 

[jgr]

No it is not Jesus who confirms a covenant with many, in Da,9:27. You don't seek the Scriptural truth, but rather, support for your own belief system.

Jesus does not make any seven year covenants, but rather, the eternal New Covenant. Not does He set up the AOD in the temple, nor stop the sacrificing there. It continued on for another 40 years before the temple was destroyed. Posts #11 and #12 regute you.


Quasar92

The New Covenant was confirmed (not made) by Christ in His ministry to Israel for the first 3.5 years of the 70th week, and by His disciples for the last 3.5 years. It is an everlasting New Covenant, fulfilled in Matthew 26:28. The Roman armies, His instruments of destruction, set up the abomination of desolation in the temple. The OT sacrifices had no further efficacy after Christ's sacrifice (Hebrews 10:16-18). Scripture refutes you.

 

[jgr]

Josephus was a general and historian. Not a expositor of scripture. And even if he was, he would be wrong.

Historical eyewitness vs. futurized fantasist. Easy choice.