Jump to content
  • entries
    101
  • comments
    52
  • views
    13,864

Daniel 9:24-27 Examined, Part 4: Verse 26


WilliamL

673 views

Index and summaries of all articles is here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1403-index-and-summaries-of-articles/

Daniel 9:24-27 Examined, Part 4: Verse 26

וְאַחֲרֵי/Then after הַשָּׁבֻעִים/the weeks שִׁשִּׁים/sixty וּשְׁנַיִם/and two יִכָּרֵת/shall be cut off [Niphal Imperfect 3ms] מָשִׁיחַ/Messiah, וְאֵין/but not לֹו/for him(self) [ל: preposition-prefix “for;” ו: pronoun-suffix “him/his”]

Then after the 62 weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself…”

Comment: Clearly this phrase in Daniel 9:26 is a prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus, hearkening back to the prophecy of Isaiah 53:8 “…for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”

*          *          *

וְהָעִיר/and the city וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ/and the sanctuary/holy place יַשְׁחִית/he shall cause to ruin/destroy [Hiphil Imperfect 3ms] עַם/people נָגִיד/of a leader/commander הַבָּא/the one coming in [Qal Active Participle ms with ה prefix]

“…and people of a leader/commander, the one coming in, he shall cause to destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

Comment: This passage is tricky, and translations generally over-simplify it. One key is to correctly interpret the verb participle בָּא. Participles can be of three types, which must be determined by the context:

1) Attributive: a verb used as an adjective to modify a noun. This is how הַבָּא is most commonly interpreted: “the coming leader/prince.” However, Hebrew grammar requires that an attributive participle must match the noun it modifies – in this potential case, נָגִיד/leader – with both participle and noun having, or both not having, the definite article ה/“the.” That is not the case here: בָּא has a ה, but נָגִיד does not. So this cannot be an attributive participle.

2) Predicative: used as a verb. These participles never take the definite article, so הַבָּא cannot be a predicative participle.

3) Substantive: used as a noun: “one doing” something. That is the case here: this is a participle used as a stand-alone phrase, “the one coming in.”

The other tricky part of this phrase is the Hiphil verb יַשְׁחִית: literally, he shall cause to ruin,” but typically shortened to “shall destroy.” The causation nature of Hiphil verbs is generally ignored in translations, because it requires the extra wordiness of the added “cause to.” Translators are seeking brevity wherever possible, so most Hiphil verbs are not fully expressed. But in this case, the added information is critical to the understanding of the context: the “nagyd/leader, the one coming in,” is the one who will cause his people to completely ruin/destroy the city and the sanctuary. This means that the coming leader must be actively responsible for the destruction in that era either personally, or through the effect of his policy. He cannot be some leader who comes in the future of that era, as some commentators claim. See #2 below.

Context also comes into play here. The next two verbs in order, found in the first part of verse 27, are also Hiphil third person masculine verbs: they describe other acts of this ruler. These three consecutive Hiphil 3ms verbs tie both verses together. More on this when verse 27 is reviewed.

*          *          *

וְקִצֹּו/and its end בַשֶּׁטֶף/with a flood (of attackers) וְעַד/and unto קֵץ/an end מִלְחָמָה/of battleנֶחֱרֶצֶת/being decreed [Niphal Passive Participle fs] שֹׁמֵמֹֽות/desolations/desolating things [Qal Active Participle fp].

… “And its end shall be with a flood of attackers, and unto an end of battle/warfare, desolations being decreed.”

Comment: The final ו on קצ/end is the third masculine singular pronominal suffix, “his or its,” which agrees with the masculine noun קדש/sanctuary. עיר/city is a feminine singular noun. The sanctuary is flooded/overflowed/deluged with a mass of armed forces. This type of water metaphor is used elsewhere in Daniel. See 11:10, 22, 26, 40.

Various Views

Daniel 9:26 Then after the 62 weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself; and people of a leader/commander, the one coming in, he shall cause to destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end shall be with a flood of attackers, and unto an end of battle/warfare, desolations being decreed.”

While there is widespread agreement in Christian commentaries about the general time of the Messiah being cut off, the remainder of verse 26 has sparked much disagreement. The current primary views:

1) Everything about the cityʼs and the sanctuaryʼs destruction is fulfilled during verse 27ʼs 70th week/seven years of the prophecy, which come in the End Times of OUR day. The presumption is that “the Antichrist,” who is “the coming prince” of verse 26, will covenant with the Jews to allow them to rebuild their Temple and re-institute blood sacrifices. Then he will renege on his covenant after 3½ years – verse 27ʼs “the middle of the week” – and ultimately destroy both Temple and Jerusalem.

2) A more recent revision of this view says that verse 26ʼs destruction of city and sanctuary was historically fulfilled by the Romans in 70 A.D. However, the coming prince and the events of verse 27 are to be fulfilled by an End Times Antichrist much as above, with the possible exception that Jerusalem wonʼt be destroyed again, only a newly-rebuilt Temple.

Both versions 1 and 2 rely on the faulty translation “the coming prince,” and they say that his coming will be in our Latter Days. Most version 2 supporters say the people of verse 26 were the Romans, so “the Antichrist” will be from a Roman or European heritage. More recently, another opinion is that he will be from a Middle Eastern Muslim heritage, since it is argued that most of the people in the Roman army of the 70 A.D. conflict were from the now largely-Muslim Middle East.

View 2ʼs argument that “the coming princeʼs/the Antichristʼs” relationship to the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple in 70 A.D. is merely one of his Roman heritage falls apart under the more precise translation of verse 26 shown above. The “leader, the one coming in” causes that destruction, so he must be present during that era – either the time of 70 A.D. or some future time. Therefore, only views 1 (future) and 3 (past) remain as potential options.

3) Every post-Messiah event of verses 26-27 was fulfilled during the seven-year Jewish War with Rome in 66-73 B.C.

Further discussion about these views shall wait until verse 27 is examined, which comes next.

0 Comments


Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

×
×
  • Create New...