Who do you think negotiates the treaty in Daniel 9:27?

[Justin Adams]

Cat among the pigeons. I trust the guy I quoted this from (2005) is OK with this. But i have some serious questions for EVERYBODY.

The False expectation of a 7 year tribulation comes from the scripture in Daniel 9:27. I wish to prove here, that this entire premise is error and cannot be used to formulate this proposition! Those who preach a 7 year tribulation, have surgically removed a single portion of scripture out of context, and taken an already fulfilled prophecy, (which fortold the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) and cast it 2,000 years into the future, to promote a false teaching and support their "pre-tribulation" rapture doctrine.

This page is an addition to my main page dealing with the rapture. I believe in a tribulation and the rapture which will follow, that's right, "follow" the tribulation (post-tribulation rapture). This page simply contends with the "7" year tribulation theory built by many modern day preachers.

(Dan 9:24-27)  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.  (25)  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (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 shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Here is a briefing on the above noted verses in Daniel chapter 9

9:24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.  

70 weeks (490 years) were determined for the Jews to cease their sins! Daniel's prophecy was written around 600 B.C. and as his prophecy continues, will prophetically point to the exact date of the coming Messiah!

9:25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

In this verse, we have a time frame of events leading to the time when the Messiah, Jesus Christ, shall come!

The “Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge” illustrates the time frame as:

7 weeks       49  years     for the Restoration of Jerusalem

62 weeks   434  years    from that date to the announcement of the Messiah by John the Baptist

1 week            7 years    for the ministry of John and of Christ to the crucifixion

70 weeks    490 years

The commentators seem to agree that the time frame commences with Artaxerxes around 457-445 BC who gave a decree to Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem.

9:26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The Messiah is “cut off” and then it talks about a “prince that shall come and destroy the city…”  The scholars all have their formulas for exacting the date of the coming of Jesus Christ through this scripture, but it is certain, that these events were fulfilled with Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago!

This is the verse where the Pre-trib teachers destroy Biblical prophecy and force it into a current day event! They make this “prince” to be the antichrist of a future time which is yet to come! From the first half of the verse, which speaks of the death of the Messiah, to the “prince”, they have added (as of today) nearly 2,000 years of time!

Adam Clarke's commentary declares:

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary - By the “prince” Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and “the people of that prince” are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary, hakkodesh, the holy place or temple, and, as a flood, swept away all, till the total destruction of that obstinate people finished the war. (9:26)

These seven years, added to the four hundred and eighty-three, complete the four hundred and ninety years, or seventy prophetic weeks; so that the whole of this prophecy, from the times and corresponding events, has been fulfilled to the very letter.

In my study library, the other Commentators all agree that this Prince is speaking of Vespasian (or his son Titus) and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. (ref. John Gill's Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge and John Wesley).

The following verse is where the Pre-Trib teachers have built the 7 year tribulation!

9:27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

While each of these commentators differ as to which of the two persons this verse is speaking about that makes the covenant for one week, Jesus the Messiah or Titus, it is clear that the “he” of verse 27 can ONLY be one of these two, and NOT a prophecy of the antichrist 2,000 years later!

How any student of Bible prophecy can take this verse which was fulfilled nearly 2,000 years ago, and throw it into the great Tribulation is beyond my comprehension. These teachers are deceitful in their strategy, but effective to sway the unlearned and those who do not know how to rightly divide the word of God! It is interesting how this scripture in Daniel is so very detailed to give the exact timing of the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the coming of our Lord, and then to the destruction of Jerusalem. Then, according to those who teach the 7 year tribulation, the scripture silently projects the final "week" over 2,000 years into the future without any reference to the missing 2,000 + years! Assuming Artaxerxes gave his order in the year 457 B.C., and today's date of 2005 A.D., the 70 weeks (490 years) prophecy has, to date, become a 2,462 year prophecy (or 351 + weeks and still counting)! Doesn't this seem suspicious to you? I contend, in agreement with Adam Clarke, that the 70 weeks are a fulfilled prophecy.

"These seven years, added to the four hundred and eighty-three, complete the four hundred and ninety years, or seventy (70) prophetic weeks; so that the whole of this prophecy, from the times and corresponding events, has been fulfilled to the very letter." Adam Clarke 

The Scholars Commentaries have much detail to write about these verses in Daniel chapter 9. But the clear verdict, is that they all agree that the prophecy is complete! The only varience, is the question as to whether the scripture was speaking of Jesus, or Titus in verse 27. If you wish to dig deeper, you can download the Bible program with these commentators at http://www.e-sword.net

John Gill's Commentary

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; the daily sacrifice of the Jews, and all their other offerings; and which was literally fulfilled "in the half part" of this week, as it may be rendered; towards the close of the latter half of it, when the city of Jerusalem, being closely besieged by Titus, what through the closeness of the siege, the divisions of the people, and the want both of time and men, and beasts to offer, the daily sacrifice ceased, as Josephus says, to the great grief of the people; nor have the Jews, ever since the destruction of their city and temple, offered any sacrifice, esteeming it unlawful so to do in a strange land

Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible

He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - The word "he," in this place, refers to the Messiah, if the interpretation of the former part of the verse is correct, for there can be no doubt that it is the same person who is mentioned in the phrase "he shall confirm the covenant with many.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Commentary

Dan 9:27 - he shall confirm the covenant--Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere. Isa_42:6, "I will give thee for a covenant of the people" (that is, He in whom the covenant between Israel and God is personally expressed); compare Luk_22:20, "The new testament in My blood"; Mal_3:1, "the angel of the covenant"; Jer_31:31-34, describes the Messianic covenant in full.

Matthew Henry's Commentary of the Whole Bible

(note: Matthew Henry's study places the end of the 490 years between the hour that Christ died, which agrees with his opinion, to 37 years after the death of Christ!

(The hour of Christ's death)

The learned Mr. Poole, in his Latin Synopsis, has a vast and most elaborate collection of what has been said, pro and con, concerning the different beginnings of these weeks, with which the learned may entertain themselves. [2.] Concerning the termination of them; and here likewise interpreters are not agreed. Some make them to end at the death of Christ, and think the express words of this famous prophecy will warrant us to conclude that from this very hour when Gabriel spoke to Daniel, at the time of the evening oblation, to the hour when Christ died, which was towards evening too, it was exactly 490 years; and I am willing enough to be of that opinion.

(3 1/2 yrs after the death of Christ)

But others think, because it is said that in the midst of the weeks (that is, the last of the seventy weeks) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, they end three years and a half after the death of Christ, when the Jews having rejected the gospel, the apostles turned to the Gentiles. But those who make them to end precisely at the death of Christ read it thus, “He shall make strong the testament to the many; the last seven, or the last week, yea, half that seven, or half that week (namely, the latter half, the three years and a half which Christ spent in his public ministry), shall bring to an end sacrifice and oblation.”

(37 years after the death of Christ)

Others make these 490 years to end with the destruction of Jerusalem, about thirty-seven years after the death of Christ, because these seventy weeks are said to be determined upon the people of the Jews and the holy city; and much is said here concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. [3.] Concerning the division of them into seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, and one week; and the reason of this is as hard to account for as any thing else. In the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the temple and city were built; and in the last single week Christ preached his gospel, by which the Jewish economy was taken down, and the foundations were laid of the gospel city and temple, which were to be built upon the ruins of the former.

Conclusion

Identifying the 70th week as the Great Tribulation of a future date, was not even an option in Henry's study nor by any other noted scholar in his day! It is a Modern Day teaching!)

I trust that the Tribulation period is not a clear cut 7 Year period. The Great Tribulation does not have an exact, determinable, beginning date, which begins at the rapture of the church with the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and their enemies as pre-tribbers teach!  I do not anticipate a "covenent" being made by the anti-christ that would start a 7 year agreement which would then be broken after 3 1/2 years as many teachers declare. I contend that Daniel chapter 9 is NOT a prophecy for end times events! It is a fulfilled prophecy!

Although I agree that the scriptures do show a 3 1/2 year period in Rev. 11:3, I contend that the 7 year tribulation has no scriptural support to give it credence as being such a major doctrine it has become and believed by many Christians today!

Rev 11:3  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

http://crossbearer-brian.tripod.com/id234.htm

[Shilohsfoal]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Again, the term abomination of desolation is not found in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:27. It is found in the text of Dan. 12:11, to which Jesus was referring.

Daniel 9:26-27 is history. Jerusalem will be occupied again in the End Times, as we are clearly told in Daniel 11:40-45, but there is no mention there or in 12:11 of a Temple on the Temple Mount, nor blood sacrifices, nor of Jerusalem and Temple being destroyed.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Unless you can provide other witnesses that Jerusalem and it's Temple will be destroyed in the End Times, your teaching that Dan. 9:26-27 is a prophecy about the End Times is without Scriptural authority. You and the others who hold this view can make all the claims you want, but you lack two witnesses of biblical evidence, and thus your words are not "established."

 

It is established in scripture in several places that jerusalem will be destroyed.

As for a man,made temple,i havnt read of any references.

Jerusalem shall be desolate just as Jesus said in the gospel.He also spoke of the abomination that causes it's desolation.

When you see the cloud rising into heaven from jerusalem maybe you will understand it then.Even the cloud I just spoke of rising into the heavens in jerusalem,is in the bible.

[WilliamL]

59 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

How any student of Bible prophecy can take this verse which was fulfilled nearly 2,000 years ago, and throw it into the great Tribulation is beyond my comprehension. These teachers are deceitful in their strategy, but effective to sway the unlearned and those who do not know how to rightly divide the word of God!

That about sums it up.

[Quasar93]

On 11/16/2017 at 7:41 AM, Psalms37:4 said:

 

Most people believe the a/c is the one who will confirm the covenant in Daniel 9:27, and I agree with that. 

I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say about this. But first, let's talk about who the person is who's working on a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. This would be Donald Trump, however I don't think any of us believe Trump is the a/c or the person spoken of in Daniel 9:27. There could be some but I don't think Trump is the a/c.

Not looking for a debate. Just wanna hear other people's view. Is Donald Trump the one fulfilling Daniel 9:27 in the future if he successfully brokers a deal.

 

Daniel 9:27 New King James Version (NKJV)

²⁷ Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

 

Yes, quite right, "he" who confirms a covenant with many, in Dan.927, is indeed the Antichrist as follows below:

(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 - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) 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: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927.htm


Quasar93

Edited December 12, 2017 by Quasar93

[Quasar93]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 3:24 PM, Quasar93 said:

Yes, quite right, "he" who confirms a covenant with many, in Dan.927, is indeed the Antichrist as follows below:

(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 - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) 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: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927.htm


Quasar93

As a point of Scriptural fact about the "prince of the people to come," in Dan.9

Dan.9:26 "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.^g The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed"

Many well known Christian expositors refer to the prince of the people to come, in verse 26, as the "he" who confirms a covenant for many, in verse 27.  However, the prince of the people to come, translates into the historical fact, was General Titus, and the people, the Roman army.  The Scriptures do not support this prince to be the "he," i.e., the Antichrist of verse 27.  69 of the 70 weeks of Daniel, 483 years, were fulfilled at the end of verse 26, in 70 A.D. Followed by the interval we are no living in, consisting of the entire Church age.  Terminating with the rapture of the Church, recorded in Jn.14:2-3, 28; 1 Thess.4:16-17 and 2 Thes.2:3 and 7-8.  Followed by Dan.9:27, the revealing of the "he/Antichrist who triggers the the 7 year tribulation; the Day of the Lord; terminating with the second coming of Jesus, WITH  His Church following Him; dressed in fine linen, white and clean, in His armies from heaven, on Rev.19:14: when Jesus ends the tribulation at the battle of Armageddon, recorded in Rev.10:11-21.

 

Qyasar93   

Edited December 20, 2017 by Quasar93

[WilliamL]

On 12/12/2017 at 2:48 PM, Quasar93 said:

Many well known Christian expositors refer to the prince of the people to come, in verse 26, as the "he" who confirms a covenant for many, in verse 27.  However, the prince of the people to come, translates into the historical fact, was General Titus, and the people, the Roman army.  The Scriptures do not support this prince to be the "he," i.e., the Antichrist of verse 27.

History does support that this nagiyd (Vespasian) was the one who fulfilled all of the requirements of Daniel 9:27: confirmed Rome's covenant with the Jews, and (by his pre--established policy, carried out by Titus) "caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" etc.

You can't honestly claim that the prince of verse 27 is "the Antichrist" without substantiation from the scriptures, which you have failed to supply. Nothing in the rest of the scriptures say that any antichrist is to cause any blood sacrifice and oblation to cease, because no End Times scripture says that blood sacrifice will be restored before the Messiah comes. Not a one.

On 12/12/2017 at 2:48 PM, Quasar93 said:

69 of the 70 weeks of Daniel, 483 years, were fulfilled at the end of verse 26, in 70 A.D.

On the contrary, the 69 weeks were fulfilled when Messiah was "cut off," according to verses 26, which took place decades before 70 AD.

[Daniel 11:36]

The 70th week is still to come .... and when it does come it is the Lord who will confirm His covenant with a portion of Israel [those who believe in Him]

It is the other prince [the antichrist] who will come to desolate at the middle of the week

[Quasar93]

8 hours ago, WilliamL said:

History does support that this nagiyd (Vespasian) was the one who fulfilled all of the requirements of Daniel 9:27: confirmed Rome's covenant with the Jews, and (by his pre--established policy, carried out by Titus) "caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" etc.

You can't honestly claim that the prince of verse 27 is "the Antichrist" without substantiation from the scriptures, which you have failed to supply. Nothing in the rest of the scriptures say that any antichrist is to cause any blood sacrifice and oblation to cease, because no End Times scripture says that blood sacrifice will be restored before the Messiah comes. Not a one.

On the contrary, the 69 weeks were fulfilled when Messiah was "cut off," according to verses 26, which took place decades before 70 AD.

 

With Reference to the prince who is to come, in Dan.9:26, many expositors try to make the Antichrist out of him, in verse 27, as the "he" who confirms the covenant with many.  I do not believe that theory at all, because IMO, the Scriptures clearly revel him to be General Titus, as the people come, who were the Roman army:

Dan.9:26 "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.^g The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’^h In the middle of the ‘seven’ⁱ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple^j he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.^k ”^l

---

Quasar93

[Daniel 11:36]

The One who will confirm the covenant with many is the Lord

Many of Israel will believe in Him during the tribulation period

It is the other prince who will come to desolate Israel at the middle of the 70th week decreed