The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9

[Salty]

 

I believe Daniel 11:1-35 is history.  Until verse 35 all the events have an exactly matching historical event. To apply all those intermarriages etc to the modern world is far-fetched when we already have clear fulfilments.

 

Then from verse 35/36 we have reference to the time of the end, and after that until verse 45 we have no historical match. So I believe its only the last 10 verses of daniel 11 that apply to the antichrist.

 

I also believe Daniel 8 is completely matched by history and does not refer to the end-times.   I believe Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Daniel 9:27b and Daniel 11:35- 12 are end-times related.

 

Summary: the antichrist's forerunner, Antiochus Epiphanes also has a prominent role in Daniel's prophecies, being mentioned in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11. He is not as prominent as the antichrist , but does get mentioned.

 

 

I have to disagree that Dan.11:1-35 is all history, because the "vile person" at Dan.11:21 is pointing to the Antichrist for the end.

 

Antiochus IV in 165-170 B.C. is still the best fit of the prophecy so far, but he did not come to power in Jerusalem  peaceably with flatteries like Dan.11:21 reveals, but by war. Also, our Lord Jesus foretold of the "abomination of desolation" event long after Antiochus IV had died.

 

Futhermore, the Dan.8, Dan.9, and Dan.12 chapters all point to the end of this world with the specific Dan.11:31 event of the transgression of desolation involving the ending of the daily sacrifice and placing of the abomination that makes desolate, the very event our Lord Jesus gave as a sign for the very end within His Olivet Discourse.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

I believe Daniel 11:1-35 is history.  Until verse 35 all the events have an exactly matching historical event. To apply all those intermarriages etc to the modern world is far-fetched when we already have clear fulfilments.

 

Then from verse 35/36 we have reference to the time of the end, and after that until verse 45 we have no historical match. So I believe its only the last 10 verses of daniel 11 that apply to the antichrist.

 

I also believe Daniel 8 is completely matched by history and does not refer to the end-times.   I believe Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Daniel 9:27b and Daniel 11:35- 12 are end-times related.

 

Summary: the antichrist's forerunner, Antiochus Epiphanes also has a prominent role in Daniel's prophecies, being mentioned in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11. He is not as prominent as the antichrist , but does get mentioned.

 

 

I have to disagree that Dan.11:1-35 is all history, because the "vile person" at Dan.11:21 is pointing to the Antichrist for the end.

 

Antiochus IV in 165-170 B.C. is still the best fit of the prophecy so far, but he did not come to power in Jerusalem  peaceably with flatteries like Dan.11:21 reveals, but by war. Also, our Lord Jesus foretold of the "abomination of desolation" event long after Antiochus IV had died.

 

Futhermore, the Dan.8, Dan.9, and Dan.12 chapters all point to the end of this world with the specific Dan.11:31 event of the transgression of desolation involving the ending of the daily sacrifice and placing of the abomination that makes desolate, the very event our Lord Jesus gave as a sign for the very end within His Olivet Discourse.

 

 

Antiochus was a vile person. He did come to power with flattery.

 

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2711.htm

 "He flattered Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, and got their assistance. He flattered the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favour, and pay them the arrears of the tribute. He flattered the Syrians, and gained their concurrence." (Clarke)

 

I completely agree with you that Daniel often prophesied about the future "abomination of desolation" also mentioned by Jesus as a future event. I however do not believe any covenant is mentioned in the context of the abomination. Your references to Daniel 8 and 11 are in my eyes clear references to Antiochus, and the other mentions of the antichrist or abomination (Daniel 7, Daniel 11, Daniel 12, Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, Rev 13) make no mention of any peace treaty.

 

So all you are left with is Daniel 9:27 which more clearly fits in with Jesus as the one who confirms the covenant. In the end we have two differing views, but no-one can say my view does not fit scripture, because it does fit. Your arguments are possibly based on an incomplete knowledge of exactly how closely Daniel 8 and Daniel 11:1-35 actually do match history, and how close Jesus matches Daniel 9:27a.

[Salty]

 

 

Antiochus was a vile person. He did come to power with flattery.

 

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2711.htm

 "He flattered Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, and got their assistance. He flattered the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favour, and pay them the arrears of the tribute. He flattered the Syrians, and gained their concurrence." (Clarke)

 

I completely agree with you that Daniel often prophesied about the future "abomination of desolation" also mentioned by Jesus as a future event. I however do not believe any covenant is mentioned in the context of the abomination. Your references to Daniel 8 and 11 are in my eyes clear references to Antiochus, and the other mentions of the antichrist or abomination (Daniel 7, Daniel 11, Daniel 12, Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, Rev 13) make no mention of any peace treaty.

 

So all you are left with is Daniel 9:27 which more clearly fits in with Jesus as the one who confirms the covenant. In the end we have two differing views, but no-one can say my view does not fit scripture, because it does fit. Your arguments are possibly based on an incomplete knowledge of exactly how closely Daniel 8 and Daniel 11:1-35 actually do match history, and how close Jesus matches Daniel 9:27a.

 

 

"When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery." (2 Maccabees 5:11-14).

 

Those were not peaceful nor flattering acts by Antiochus IV in Jerusalem. The one in Dan.11:21 is to come to power peaceably, which also is iterated about the "little horn" in Dan.8.

 

Dan.9:27 includes a clear reference to the "league" of Dan.11:23 the "vile person" makes, which is what the "covenant" of Dan.9:27 is about. When that verse says that covenant is broken in the midst of the "one week", and the event of the abomination and end of sacrifice then happens, that is the same subject of Dan.11:31, Dan.8, and Dan.12 about the end, the "abomination of desolation" subject Jesus quoted. Even the context of Dan.9:27 after the mention of the end of sacrifice and oblation (which is in regards to a temple in Jerusalem), the subject is still the events that consumate the end of this world. Likewise it is in Dan.12 with that same subject link.

 

Just because the KJV using the word "covenant" in Dan.9:27 for the "league" of Dan.11:21, it does not mean any of God's Covenants. That should be easy, since Jesus made no specific covenant with anyone for a limited 7 year period that would be broken after 3.5 years. You claim since The Gospel Books don't mention specifically the idea of the ending of sacrifices that that is proof of your view, yet there is no mention anywhere in The New Testament of a 7 year covenant that our Lord Jesus ever made with anyone. And definitely not with any idea of Him breaking such a covenant.

 

When we look at the subject and context of Christ's Olivet Discourse involving the 2nd temple He and His disciples saw while there upon the Mount of Olives, there is proof of that idea of the end of sacrifices given there also, because He quoted the event of the "abomination of desolation" from the Book of Daniel which includes that event of the end of sacrifice and oblation by the priests. He didn't have to re-read the whole Book of Daniel for those present with Him to know the events He was speaking of from the Book of Daniel when He said "abomination of desolation."

[iamlamad]

 

 

I believe Daniel 11:1-35 is history.  Until verse 35 all the events have an exactly matching historical event. To apply all those intermarriages etc to the modern world is far-fetched when we already have clear fulfilments.

 

Then from verse 35/36 we have reference to the time of the end, and after that until verse 45 we have no historical match. So I believe its only the last 10 verses of daniel 11 that apply to the antichrist.

 

I also believe Daniel 8 is completely matched by history and does not refer to the end-times.   I believe Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Daniel 9:27b and Daniel 11:35- 12 are end-times related.

 

Summary: the antichrist's forerunner, Antiochus Epiphanes also has a prominent role in Daniel's prophecies, being mentioned in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11. He is not as prominent as the antichrist , but does get mentioned.

 

 

I have to disagree that Dan.11:1-35 is all history, because the "vile person" at Dan.11:21 is pointing to the Antichrist for the end.

 

Antiochus IV in 165-170 B.C. is still the best fit of the prophecy so far, but he did not come to power in Jerusalem  peaceably with flatteries like Dan.11:21 reveals, but by war. Also, our Lord Jesus foretold of the "abomination of desolation" event long after Antiochus IV had died.

 

Futhermore, the Dan.8, Dan.9, and Dan.12 chapters all point to the end of this world with the specific Dan.11:31 event of the transgression of desolation involving the ending of the daily sacrifice and placing of the abomination that makes desolate, the very event our Lord Jesus gave as a sign for the very end within His Olivet Discourse.

 

It does not say he came to power IN JERUSALEM by flatteries. Daniel wrote; "He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant." Then "³² With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant." So his flatteries only worked on those who had abandoned their covenant.

 

Whoever you was quoting  was right: Dan. 11 does not begin to refer to the Beast of Revelation until verse 36. The Previous verses are about Antiochus. Daniel 8 is also about Antiochus.  Therefore any theory that uses the 2300 days for end times or four the future will be WRONG.

 

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.

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

 

It seems MUCH MORE LIKELY that Daniel's "he" in verse 27 is referring back to the prince that shall come who was none other than the Roman Emperor.

 

LAMAD

[Salty]

Per Dan.11:21-24, the "vile person" obtains the kingdom by "flatteries". Verse 23 says after the "league" is made he will become strong with "a small people". Verse 24 says he will enter "peaceably" upon the fattest places of the province. Then after his dealings with the king of the south, he will return and do these things...

 

Dan.11

²⁸ Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

 

Why all of sudden is this "holy covenant" mentioned at this point, and why is he against it?

 

Because of the signs of the end our Lord Jesus gave, pointing to the 2nd temple when He warned of the "abomination of desolation" event, the flow in Dan.11 about this "vile person" culminates in the setting up of that abomination in the temple in Jerusalem in verse 31.

 

But at this point in Dan.11:28 the "vile person" has not placed the abomination yet. Instead he has made a "league" in association with "a small people", which most likely points to an isolated political structure that will support him. And that "league" involves this established "holy covenant" in that time. The "league" is not this "holy covenant", but instead is the agreement that will include the re-establishing of the "holy covenant" in Jerusalem, which will be the re-establishing of animal sacrifices and temple worship in Jerusalem by the orthodox Jews. The Jews' desire to return and establish the state of Israel again for centuries has been to do this very thing, to re-establish Jerusalem, the temple, and the Old Covenant style worship and all that it involves.

 

At this Dan.11:28 verse, the "vile person" is shown starting to turn against this "league" he made, with his heart against the "holy covenant". This reveals the period prior to the "midst" of the "one week" of Dan.9:27. The first half of the symbolic "one week" (7 years) is 1260 days or 3.5 years. The 2300 days separates the 1st 1260 days into two periods, one of 1040 days, and then a shorter period of 220 days, both prior to the "midst" or middle of the "one week". The "holy covenant" is being shown established at this point just prior to the "midst" of the "one week". Sacrifices and temple worship is going on at this point.

 

²⁹ At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

³⁰ For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

 

When the "vile person" returns to Jerusalem, his indignation against the "holy covenant" then is joined by others who also are against it, i.e., "them that forsake the holy covenant."

 

³¹ 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.

 

At this verse 31 the "midst" of the "one week" is reached, the "vile person" ends the daily sacrifices and thus the "league" he made to re-establish the "holy covenant" in Jerusalem and instead "shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." At this point the "great tribulation" timing begins, the 1260 day latter half of the "one week".

 

 

³² And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

 

Those who truly know our Heavenly Father will be strong and do exploits, but the wicked will side with that "vile person" against the covenant.

 

Thus these Dan.11 events involving the "vile person" overlay the events of Dan.9:27 of the one who makes a covenant for a 7 year period, but in the middle of the 7 years breaks it, ends the daily sacrifice and oblation, and instead spreads abominations that make desolate, i.e., the placing of an abomination idol in the temple at Jerusalem in false worship, the "abomination of desolation" our Lord Jesus quoted in His Olivet Discourse when giving signs of the very end of this world.

[ARGOSY]

 

ARGOSY

 

Antiochus was a vile person. He did come to power with flattery.

 

 

This is a historical fact, and is correct but having said that, here lies your problem which you said

 

I believe Daniel 11:1-35 is history.  Until verse 35 all the events have an exactly matching historical event.

 

 

No it doesnt

 

If look into the history of Antiochus IV you will see that he did not fulfill verses 21-23. These verses tell us that the "king of the north" will enter the Seleucid kingdom as an outsider, and grasp it against the better will of its citizens. Yet Antiochus became king as a rightful heir to the Seleucid throne when his brother (Seleucus IV) died. He did not lack royal prestige or suffer public rejection so that he needed to worm into the kingdom, as an outsider, with intrigue, as does the subject of the Daniel text. To the contrary, from the day that Antiochus stepped foot on Seleucid soil, he was "able to rally to his side the citizenry and...the military" (The Kings Depart. Alyn Brodsky: Harper and Row Publishers; page 50).

 

On top of these significant points, and contrary to verse 22, there was no Seleucid army swept away from before Antiochus in order to allow his entrance into the kingdom.

 

 21 “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power.

 

He was not given the honor of royalty, although he was part of the Seleucid royal family he spent his youth as a hostage in Rome. He seized the throne through intrigue, murdering the child heir to the throne. Then he invaded Egypt, taking over Israel too.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

Antiochus was a vile person. He did come to power with flattery.

 

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2711.htm

 "He flattered Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, and got their assistance. He flattered the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favour, and pay them the arrears of the tribute. He flattered the Syrians, and gained their concurrence." (Clarke)

 

I completely agree with you that Daniel often prophesied about the future "abomination of desolation" also mentioned by Jesus as a future event. I however do not believe any covenant is mentioned in the context of the abomination. Your references to Daniel 8 and 11 are in my eyes clear references to Antiochus, and the other mentions of the antichrist or abomination (Daniel 7, Daniel 11, Daniel 12, Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, Rev 13) make no mention of any peace treaty.

 

So all you are left with is Daniel 9:27 which more clearly fits in with Jesus as the one who confirms the covenant. In the end we have two differing views, but no-one can say my view does not fit scripture, because it does fit. Your arguments are possibly based on an incomplete knowledge of exactly how closely Daniel 8 and Daniel 11:1-35 actually do match history, and how close Jesus matches Daniel 9:27a.

 

 

"When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery." (2 Maccabees 5:11-14).

 

Those were not peaceful nor flattering acts by Antiochus IV in Jerusalem. The one in Dan.11:21 is to come to power peaceably, which also is iterated about the "little horn" in Dan.8.

 

Dan.9:27 includes a clear reference to the "league" of Dan.11:23 the "vile person" makes, which is what the "covenant" of Dan.9:27 is about. When that verse says that covenant is broken in the midst of the "one week", and the event of the abomination and end of sacrifice then happens, that is the same subject of Dan.11:31, Dan.8, and Dan.12 about the end, the "abomination of desolation" subject Jesus quoted. Even the context of Dan.9:27 after the mention of the end of sacrifice and oblation (which is in regards to a temple in Jerusalem), the subject is still the events that consumate the end of this world. Likewise it is in Dan.12 with that same subject link.

 

Just because the KJV using the word "covenant" in Dan.9:27 for the "league" of Dan.11:21, it does not mean any of God's Covenants. That should be easy, since Jesus made no specific covenant with anyone for a limited 7 year period that would be broken after 3.5 years. You claim since The Gospel Books don't mention specifically the idea of the ending of sacrifices that that is proof of your view, yet there is no mention anywhere in The New Testament of a 7 year covenant that our Lord Jesus ever made with anyone. And definitely not with any idea of Him breaking such a covenant.

 

When we look at the subject and context of Christ's Olivet Discourse involving the 2nd temple He and His disciples saw while there upon the Mount of Olives, there is proof of that idea of the end of sacrifices given there also, because He quoted the event of the "abomination of desolation" from the Book of Daniel which includes that event of the end of sacrifice and oblation by the priests. He didn't have to re-read the whole Book of Daniel for those present with Him to know the events He was speaking of from the Book of Daniel when He said "abomination of desolation."

 

 

I'm not claiming that Jesus made a covenant, the Hebrew means "gave strength to a covenant" that is why many translations say that he "confirmed" a covenant. A covenant is a promise, Jesus fulfilled God's promise to send Israel a Messiah. Simple as that.  The reason why the fulfilment of this occurs for 7 years, is that Jesus' ministry confirmed that Jesus was the Messiah for a period of 3.5 years. Additionally during the great tribulation Jews will be open to the gospel, which means that through salvation Jews will know that Jesus is the Messiah, it will be confirmed to them. So for 7 years Jesus is confirmed to the Jews as their promised Messiah.

 

Yes Jesus was referring to the book of Daniel regarding the abomination, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that reference to Daniel 9:27. This means that Jesus' focus was on the last 3.5 years, not the first 3.5 years:

 

He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.

But in the middle of that week

he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.

On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys,

until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.

 

In Matthew 24 Jesus refers to the abomination, the one who destroys. Jesus does not refer to the earlier person who halts sacrifice. Jesus was only concerned about the great tribulation (the last 3.5 years started by the "abomination".)  

[Salty]

 

 

 

 

Antiochus was a vile person. He did come to power with flattery.

 

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2711.htm

 "He flattered Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, and got their assistance. He flattered the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favour, and pay them the arrears of the tribute. He flattered the Syrians, and gained their concurrence." (Clarke)

 

I completely agree with you that Daniel often prophesied about the future "abomination of desolation" also mentioned by Jesus as a future event. I however do not believe any covenant is mentioned in the context of the abomination. Your references to Daniel 8 and 11 are in my eyes clear references to Antiochus, and the other mentions of the antichrist or abomination (Daniel 7, Daniel 11, Daniel 12, Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, Rev 13) make no mention of any peace treaty.

 

So all you are left with is Daniel 9:27 which more clearly fits in with Jesus as the one who confirms the covenant. In the end we have two differing views, but no-one can say my view does not fit scripture, because it does fit. Your arguments are possibly based on an incomplete knowledge of exactly how closely Daniel 8 and Daniel 11:1-35 actually do match history, and how close Jesus matches Daniel 9:27a.

 

 

"When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery." (2 Maccabees 5:11-14).

 

Those were not peaceful nor flattering acts by Antiochus IV in Jerusalem. The one in Dan.11:21 is to come to power peaceably, which also is iterated about the "little horn" in Dan.8.

 

Dan.9:27 includes a clear reference to the "league" of Dan.11:23 the "vile person" makes, which is what the "covenant" of Dan.9:27 is about. When that verse says that covenant is broken in the midst of the "one week", and the event of the abomination and end of sacrifice then happens, that is the same subject of Dan.11:31, Dan.8, and Dan.12 about the end, the "abomination of desolation" subject Jesus quoted. Even the context of Dan.9:27 after the mention of the end of sacrifice and oblation (which is in regards to a temple in Jerusalem), the subject is still the events that consumate the end of this world. Likewise it is in Dan.12 with that same subject link.

 

Just because the KJV using the word "covenant" in Dan.9:27 for the "league" of Dan.11:21, it does not mean any of God's Covenants. That should be easy, since Jesus made no specific covenant with anyone for a limited 7 year period that would be broken after 3.5 years. You claim since The Gospel Books don't mention specifically the idea of the ending of sacrifices that that is proof of your view, yet there is no mention anywhere in The New Testament of a 7 year covenant that our Lord Jesus ever made with anyone. And definitely not with any idea of Him breaking such a covenant.

 

When we look at the subject and context of Christ's Olivet Discourse involving the 2nd temple He and His disciples saw while there upon the Mount of Olives, there is proof of that idea of the end of sacrifices given there also, because He quoted the event of the "abomination of desolation" from the Book of Daniel which includes that event of the end of sacrifice and oblation by the priests. He didn't have to re-read the whole Book of Daniel for those present with Him to know the events He was speaking of from the Book of Daniel when He said "abomination of desolation."

 

 

I'm not claiming that Jesus made a covenant, the Hebrew means "gave strength to a covenant" that is why many translations say that he "confirmed" a covenant. A covenant is a promise, Jesus fulfilled God's promise to send Israel a Messiah. Simple as that.  The reason why the fulfilment of this occurs for 7 years, is that Jesus' ministry confirmed that Jesus was the Messiah for a period of 3.5 years. Additionally during the great tribulation Jews will be open to the gospel, which means that through salvation Jews will know that Jesus is the Messiah, it will be confirmed to them. So for 7 years Jesus is confirmed to the Jews as their promised Messiah.

 

Yes Jesus was referring to the book of Daniel regarding the abomination, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that reference to Daniel 9:27. This means that Jesus' focus was on the last 3.5 years, not the first 3.5 years:

 

He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.

But in the middle of that week

he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.

On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys,

until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.

 

In Matthew 24 Jesus refers to the abomination, the one who destroys. Jesus does not refer to the earlier person who halts sacrifice. Jesus was only concerned about the great tribulation (the last 3.5 years started by the "abomination".)  

 

 

It's hard to explain that 'confirm' idea without also understanding the "league" idea of Dan.11. It's actually the "league" the "vile person" will make in Jerusalem that will do what? What Covenant is being pointed to with the building of another temple in Jerusalem, and startup of the old sacrifices and oblation services by the priests again?

 

And in the "middle" of the "one week" that vile person will end the daily sacrifice and oblation and instead place the abomination that makes desolate, revealing what about the previous days of sacrifice and oblation?

[ARGOSY]

It does not say he came to power IN JERUSALEM by flatteries. Daniel wrote; "He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant." Then "³² With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant." So his flatteries only worked on those who had abandoned their covenant.

 

Whoever you was quoting  was right: Dan. 11 does not begin to refer to the Beast of Revelation until verse 36. The Previous verses are about Antiochus. Daniel 8 is also about Antiochus.  Therefore any theory that uses the 2300 days for end times or four the future will be WRONG.

 

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.

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

 

It seems MUCH MORE LIKELY that Daniel's "he" in verse 27 is referring back to the prince that shall come who was none other than the Roman Emperor.

 

LAMAD

 

 

That doesn't make grammatical sense.

 

The clown comes to his hometown. The family of the coming clown will see him at the circus.

 

Would you really read that sentence as 2 clowns?  In the same way, why would the coming prince of verse 25 (Jesus) be any different to the coming prince of verse 26?  For some reason you are letting your view of history (Romans ruin the city) override what the text is actually grammatically saying:  that the coming prince in both verse 25 and 26 are logically the same coming prince.

 

Of course this would then mean that Galileans in fact ruined the city , because Jesus' countrymen were Galileans. 

[iamlamad]

 

It does not say he came to power IN JERUSALEM by flatteries. Daniel wrote; "He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant." Then "³² With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant." So his flatteries only worked on those who had abandoned their covenant.

 

Whoever you was quoting  was right: Dan. 11 does not begin to refer to the Beast of Revelation until verse 36. The Previous verses are about Antiochus. Daniel 8 is also about Antiochus.  Therefore any theory that uses the 2300 days for end times or four the future will be WRONG.

 

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.

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

 

It seems MUCH MORE LIKELY that Daniel's "he" in verse 27 is referring back to the prince that shall come who was none other than the Roman Emperor.

 

LAMAD

 

 

That doesn't make grammatical sense.

 

The clown comes to his hometown. The family of the coming clown will see him at the circus.

 

Would you really read that sentence as 2 clowns?  In the same way, why would the coming prince of verse 25 (Jesus) be any different to the coming prince of verse 26?  For some reason you are letting your view of history (Romans ruin the city) override what the text is actually grammatically saying:  that the coming prince in both verse 25 and 26 are logically the same coming prince.

 

Of course this would then mean that Galileans in fact ruined the city , because Jesus' countrymen were Galileans. 

 

 

 

You are right in a way, of course same clown. But in Daniel, NOT the same clown or prince.

 

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.

27  And HE...

 

One coming prince was titled "Messiah." The other coming prince destroyed the city. You had one clown, but in reality there were two. The Messiah was cut off and did NOT destroy the city. The OTHER one that came and destroyed the city and sanctuary was TITUS, a Roman emperor, not Jesus.

 

A clown will be cut off in his own hometown. The family of the coming clown will see him at the circus. 

 

Not necessary that they are the same clown. Those in Galilee did NOT destroy the city, because TWO DIFFERENT PRINCES: one titled "Messiah" and the other a prince with a description to identify him. .And the HE refers back to the last mention: the one that destroyed the city.

 

This is proven by the New Testament and by History. Jesus was cut off, but ANOTHER prince destroyed the city. it is not an easy verse to decipher, but then, we have the book of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament to help.

 

LAMAD