Confirming of the Covenant - Daniel 9:27

[Davy]

I agree (except for the Daniel 11 vile person connection).

Well of course you don't agree with Dan.11, since it's obvious you are not really following the Daniel Scripture that the "little horn", and "vile person", is actually who the Book of Daniel shows represents the final Antichrist at the END of this world.

The Antichrist, as the thought-to-be messiah by the Jews, following Gog/Magog, will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant, which established the animal sacrifices, for 7 years. The 7 years is a cycle that Moses wrote as a requirement of all future leaders of Israel to do as long as they were in the land.

That is some kind of truly WILD imaginative false theory there, which is NOT written in God's Word.

The coming Antichrist as some "thought-to-be messiah by the Jews"? Really? That's one crazy imagination, and blindness about the coming FALSE-MESSIAH that Jesus, Apostle Paul and Apostle John warned the Church about!

The PROPER ORDER of end time events per God's written Word:

• latter days 70th week of Daniel 9:27, the Antichrist re-establishes the old covenant worship for the Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, for 7 years.
• the Jews in Jerusalem build a 3rd temple and start up temple worship with the daily sacrifices.
• at the mid point of the 7 years, i.e., after the first 1260 day period, the Antichrist-false-Christ ends the Jew's daily sacrifices and temple worship, and instead places the "abomination that maketh desolate" from Daniel 11:31, which that "vile person" there IS... the final Antichrist/false-Messiah.
• the deceived Jews WILL bow in worship to the Antichrist/false-Messiah thinking he actually is... their Messiah having come.
• deceived Christian brethren that ally with those deceived Orthodox Jews will follow suit, wrongly bowing in worship to that Antichrist/false-Messiah being told he is our Lord Jesus Christ, like Apostle Paul showed in 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Corinthians 11.
• God's two witnesses will be sent to Jerusalem for that latter 1260 day period, the time of "great tribulation" at the end of this present world, and they and the "two candlesticks" will prophesy for that period against the beast, which is the time of the Mark 13 Testimony for Christ against them.
• then towards the end of that latter 1260 day period, the "great tribulation" which Jesus has shortened, the false-Messiah will seek to kill those who refuse to bow to him in worship.
• that is when Lord Jesus Christ will step in and END this present world on the "day of the Lord" and destroy that false one with the brightness of His coming.
• then Christ's future "thousand years" reign with His FAITHFUL Church will begin that reign over all nations, and the leftover wicked.

 

[Davidpt]

I agree. In case anyone thinks that God doesn't ever use the wicked for His purposes, they should read this:

Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

God put it in the hearts of the Roman armies to fulfll His will to take out His wrath on the Jews who rejected His Son. So, in that sense, they were the people of the Messiah Prince. So, this is a perfectly viable interpretation of Daniel 9:26.

The only other interpretation that I think could be viable is that the people of the prince could be referring to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The King of the Jews. In a sense, the Jews destroyed the city and the sanctuary by rejecting Christ. They brought it on themselves.

Now if you can just find something like that that calls them the people of God, the same way, for example, how Daniel 9:15 is meaning. After all, if Jesus is meant in verse 26 as the prince who is to come, and unless someone wants to dispute that Jesus is God, that means verse 26 should be understood in the same sense as God's people are being understood in Daniel 9:15, for example.

Daniel 9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.


No one, including you, would take 'thy people' in the same sense you are trying to apply it in verse 26. The Romans are not His people. Therefore, it is ludricrous that the prince to come in verse 26 is meaning Christ. I cannot accept that. No reasonable person should because if Christ is meant, thus God is meant, that contradicts that the people to come are meaning Romans.

For example. If someone said the people of Putin will come and destroy something, no one would take that to mean Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, etc, will come. They would take it to mean Russians will come since Mexicans, etc, are not the people of Putin, Russians are. In the first century Romans were not His people, the Jews were. Therefore, if Christ is meant in verse 26, His ppl have to be meaning the Jews then. Good luck making that fit anything even though you did propose something like that in your last paragraph.

And since Romans in the first century, or any century, can't fit anything either if Christ is meant in verse 26, any objective person is going to look elsewhere for who the prince to come is meaning since it obviously can't be meaning Christ no matter how you look at it.

I'm willing to possibly change my mind if you can find an example in the Bible where God uses His enemies to destroy someone or something, and then the text telling us these are God's people, meaning in the same sense they are meaning His ppl in Daniel 9:15, for example. I do not dispute that God sometimes uses His enemies to destroy someone or something. What I do dispute is, not one single time is it meaning His ppl the same way, for example, Daniel 9:15 is meaning His ppl. Clearly, the people of the prince to come in Daniel 9:26 is meaning they are the people of this prince, not his enemies instead. Your interpretation has the ppl meaning his enemies, then calling them this prince's ppl.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now if you can just find something like that that calls them the people of God, the same way, for example, how Daniel 9:15 is meaning. After all, if Jesus is meant in verse 26 as the prince who is to come, and unless someone wants to dispute that Jesus is God, that means verse 26 should be understood in the same sense as God's people are being understood in Daniel 9:15, for example.

Daniel 9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.


No one, including you, would take 'thy people' in the same sense you are trying to apply it in verse 26. The Romans are not His people. Therefore, it is ludricrous that the prince to come in verse 26 is meaning Christ. I cannot accept that. No reasonable person should because if Christ is meant, thus God is meant, that contradicts that the people to come are meaning Romans.

For example. If someone said the people of Putin will come and destroy something, no one would take that to mean Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, etc, will come. They would take it to mean Russians will come since Mexicans, etc, are not the people of Putin, Russians are. In the first century Romans were not His people, the Jews were. Therefore, if Christ is meant in verse 26, His ppl have to be meaning the Jews then. Good luck making that fit anything even though you did propose something like that in your last paragraph.

And since Romans in the first century, or any century, can't fit anything either if Christ is meant in verse 26, any objective person is going to look elsewhere for who the prince to come is meaning since it obviously can't be meaning Christ no matter how you look at it.

I'm willing to possibly change my mind if you can find an example in the Bible where God uses His enemies to destroy someone or something, and then the text telling us these are God's people, meaning in the same sense they are meaning His ppl in Daniel 9:15, for example. I do not dispute that God sometimes uses His enemies to destroy someone or something. What I do dispute is, not one single time is it meaning His ppl the same way, for example, Daniel 9:15 is meaning His ppl. Clearly, the people of the prince to come in Daniel 9:26 is meaning they are the people of this prince, not his enemies instead. Your interpretation has the ppl meaning his enemies, then calling them this prince's ppl.

David, that's a reasonable argument that you're making here, but did you somehow miss that I said "The only other interpretation that I think could be viable is that the people of the prince could be referring to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The King of the Jews. In a sense, the Jews destroyed the city and the sanctuary by rejecting Christ. They brought it on themselves."?

So, I see both views as being viable. I'm not fully committed to either one at the moment. Either way, the prince is Jesus.

Here is another way to look at it:

Daniel 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.
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.

First, "Messiah the Prince" is mentioned in verse 25. Then in verse 26 "Messiah" is mentioned. Then, a little later in verse 26 "the prince" is mentioned. It seems to me that "the prince" is mentioned in verse 26 in such a way that people would understand who the prince is because there is no explanation given for who he is. It makes sense in that case that it would be referring to Messiah the Prince since he was already previously mentioned.

 

[covenantee]

Now if you can just find something like that that calls them the people of God, the same way, for example, how Daniel 9:15 is meaning. After all, if Jesus is meant in verse 26 as the prince who is to come, and unless someone wants to dispute that Jesus is God, that means verse 26 should be understood in the same sense as God's people are being understood in Daniel 9:15, for example.

Daniel 9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.


No one, including you, would take 'thy people' in the same sense you are trying to apply it in verse 26. The Romans are not His people. Therefore, it is ludricrous that the prince to come in verse 26 is meaning Christ. I cannot accept that. No reasonable person should because if Christ is meant, thus God is meant, that contradicts that the people to come are meaning Romans.

For example. If someone said the people of Putin will come and destroy something, no one would take that to mean Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, etc, will come. They would take it to mean Russians will come since Mexicans, etc, are not the people of Putin, Russians are. In the first century Romans were not His people, the Jews were. Therefore, if Christ is meant in verse 26, His ppl have to be meaning the Jews then. Good luck making that fit anything even though you did propose something like that in your last paragraph.

And since Romans in the first century, or any century, can't fit anything either if Christ is meant in verse 26, any objective person is going to look elsewhere for who the prince to come is meaning since it obviously can't be meaning Christ no matter how you look at it.

I'm willing to possibly change my mind if you can find an example in the Bible where God uses His enemies to destroy someone or something, and then the text telling us these are God's people, meaning in the same sense they are meaning His ppl in Daniel 9:15, for example. I do not dispute that God sometimes uses His enemies to destroy someone or something. What I do dispute is, not one single time is it meaning His ppl the same way, for example, Daniel 9:15 is meaning His ppl. Clearly, the people of the prince to come in Daniel 9:26 is meaning they are the people of this prince, not his enemies instead. Your interpretation has the ppl meaning his enemies, then calling them this prince's ppl.

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.
11 And when he cometh, he shall smite the land of Egypt, and deliver such as are for death to death; and such as are for captivity to captivity; and such as are for the sword to the sword.
12 And I will kindle a fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them, and carry them away captives: and he shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment; and he shall go forth from thence in peace.
13 He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.

The pagan Nebuchadrezzar is described by God as my servant to "smite the land of Egypt".

It is not surprising that the pagan Romans are described as prince Messiah's people to smite the land of Israel.

 

[Davidpt]

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.
11 And when he cometh, he shall smite the land of Egypt, and deliver such as are for death to death; and such as are for captivity to captivity; and such as are for the sword to the sword.
12 And I will kindle a fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them, and carry them away captives: and he shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment; and he shall go forth from thence in peace.
13 He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.

The pagan Nebuchadrezzar is described by God as my servant to "smite the land of Egypt".

It is not surprising that the pagan Romans would be described as prince Messiah's people to smite the land of Israel.

And take notice the last time Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned in the OT, how that ends. No wonder God said he was his servant.

Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Does that sound like that fits anything any of the Romans did after destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD?

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


This is how we should understand verse 26, like such? and the enemies of Christ that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Guess what, though? If that is meaning the Romans and 70 AD, and if the prince that shall come is meaning Christ, that equals how Preterists interpret Matthew 24 pertaining to the coming in verse 30. Preterists do not apply that verse to that of the 2nd coming in end of this age, they apply verse 30 to a coming in 70 AD instead.

Daniel 9:26 does not say this---and the people of the prince that already came earlier shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It says this instead---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. As in, this prince in question is still to come, not already came earlier. How can 'shall come' mean past tense rather than future tense?

Think about this. If one is interpreting Matthew 24:30 to be involving Christ's 2nd coming in the end of this age, then taking the prince in Daniel 9:26 to be meaning Christ, they are then agreeing with the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30, therefore, contradicting their interpretation of Matthew 24:30.

If 70 AD, the Romans, and the coming of Christ are meant in Daniel 9:26, that means, though clearly wrong, Matthew 24:30 would be supporting this interpretation of Daniel 9:26.

IOW, like such. and the people(the Romans) of the prince that shall come(supported by verse 30 in Matthew 24) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(meaning in 70 AD). That would be the only way to understand that verse if Christ is meaning the prince that shall come, as in the future, meaning after He already came earlier but was cut off. In verse 26 'shall come' can only mean one thing unless one is being dishonest with the text. It means this prince comes after a Prince already came earlier, meaning Christ of course, but was cut off.

IOW, no intellectually honest person is going to take 'shall come' to mean already came earlier, in relation to when the ppl of this prince comes and destroys the city and sanctuary. Only someone intellectually dishonest would take 'shall come' to mean already came earlier rather than still to come in the future, meaning post that of being cut off.

It would look like this. The Messiah meant in verse 25 comes and is eventually cut off, which equals already came not shall come. Then sometime after that in the future shall come a prince, obviously not meaning Messiah in verse 25 unless one is a Preterist and finds that Matthew 24:30 can support that. Except not everyone are Preterists and interpret Matthew 24:30 like Preterists might.

For someone like me, Matthew 24:30 does not support that Christ shall come in 70 AD, thus disagrees that Christ can be meant as the prince that shall come after another prince already came earlier but was cut off. And once again, shall come is meaning future tense not past tense. Undeniably, there are two princes in Daniel 9:26 then, where one comes earlier but is cut-off, and that yet another one shall come after the first one was cut off. The only way the prince that shall come can be meaning Christ is if Preterists are interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly. And clearly they are not.

 

[WPM]

David, that's a reasonable argument that you're making here, but did you somehow miss that I said "The only other interpretation that I think could be viable is that the people of the prince could be referring to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The King of the Jews. In a sense, the Jews destroyed the city and the sanctuary by rejecting Christ. They brought it on themselves."?

So, I see both views as being viable. I'm not fully committed to either one at the moment. Either way, the prince is Jesus.

Here is another way to look at it:

Daniel 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.
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.

First, "Messiah the Prince" is mentioned in verse 25. Then in verse 26 "Messiah" is mentioned. Then, a little later in verse 26 "the prince" is mentioned. It seems to me that "the prince" is mentioned in verse 26 in such a way that people would understand who the prince is because there is no explanation given for who he is. It makes sense in that case that it would be referring to Messiah the Prince since he was already previously mentioned.

There are 2 princes in Daniel 9 (in my opinion): (1) Christ the Messiah, and (2) a prince that would oversee the destruction of Jerusalem.

Q. Who are “the people of the prince that shall come”?
A. The Roman soldiers.

The 2nd prince who was responsible for the destruction of the temple and the city was not Jesus. It was the Roman "prince." His people would come and destroy the temple and city in AD70.

 

[covenantee]

There are 2 princes in Daniel 9 (in my opinion): (1) Christ the Messiah, and (2) a prince that would oversee the destruction of Jerusalem.

Q. Who are “the people of the prince that shall come”?
A. The Roman soldiers.

The 2nd prince who was responsible for the destruction of the temple and the city was not Jesus. It was the Roman "prince." His people would come and destroy the temple and city in AD70.

No bro. There is only one Individual identified as a prince in the passage.

He is Messiah the Prince.

It is He who was in command and control in 70 AD, using the Roman armies as His people to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon apostate Israel.

 

[covenantee]

And take notice the last time Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned in the OT, how that ends. No wonder God said he was his servant.

Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Does that sound like that fits anything any of the Romans did after destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD?

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


This is how we should understand verse 26, like such? and the enemies of Christ that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Guess what, though? If that is meaning the Romans and 70 AD, and if the prince that shall come is meaning Christ, that equals how Preterists interpret Matthew 24 pertaining to the coming in verse 30. Preterists do not apply that verse to that of the 2nd coming in end of this age, they apply verse 30 to a coming in 70 AD instead.

Daniel 9:26 does not say this---and the people of the prince that already came earlier shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It says this instead---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. As in, this prince in question is still to come, not already came earlier. How can 'shall come' mean past tense rather than future tense?

Think about this. If one is interpreting Matthew 24:30 to be involving Christ's 2nd coming in the end of this age, then taking the prince in Daniel 9:26 to be meaning Christ, they are then agreeing with the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30, therefore, contradicting their interpretation of Matthew 24:30.

If 70 AD, the Romans, and the coming of Christ are meant in Daniel 9:26, that means, though clearly wrong, Matthew 24:30 would be supporting this interpretation of Daniel 9:26.

IOW, like such. and the people(the Romans) of the prince that shall come(supported by verse 30 in Matthew 24) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(meaning in 70 AD). That would be the only way to understand that verse if Christ is meaning the prince that shall come, as in the future, meaning after He already came earlier but was cut off. In verse 26 'shall come' can only mean one thing unless one is being dishonest with the text. It means this prince comes after a Prince already came earlier, meaning Christ of course, but was cut off.

IOW, no intellectually honest person is going to take 'shall come' to mean already came earlier, in relation to when the ppl of this prince comes and destroys the city and sanctuary. Only someone intellectually dishonest would take 'shall come' to mean already came earlier rather than still to come in the future, meaning post that of being cut off.

It would look like this. The Messiah meant in verse 25 comes and is eventually cut off, which equals already came not shall come. Then sometime after that in the future shall come a prince, obviously not meaning Messiah in verse 25 unless one is a Preterist and finds that Matthew 24:30 can support that. Except not everyone are Preterists and interpret Matthew 24:30 like Preterists might.

For someone like me, Matthew 24:30 does not support that Christ shall come in 70 AD, thus disagrees that Christ can be meant as the prince that shall come after another prince already came earlier but was cut off. And once again, shall come is meaning future tense not past tense. Undeniably, there are two princes in Daniel 9:26 then, where one comes earlier but is cut-off, and that yet another one shall come after the first one was cut off. The only way the prince that shall come can be meaning Christ is if Preterists are interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly. And clearly they are not.

If the pagan Nebuchadrezzar could be described as God's servant (and he was),
Then the pagan Romans could be described as Messiah's people (and they were).

A straightforward Scriptural analogy and reality.

The book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. Messiah was the prince who did come, two centuries later.

However, it was set in the 6th century BC, thus Messiah's coming was six centuries after what is described therein.

 

[jeffweeder]

There are 2 princes in Daniel 9 (in my opinion): (1) Christ the Messiah, and (2) a prince that would oversee the destruction of Jerusalem.

Q. Who are “the people of the prince that shall come”?
A. The Roman soldiers.

The 2nd prince who was responsible for the destruction of the temple and the city was not Jesus. It was the Roman "prince." His people would come and destroy the temple and city in AD70.

The Amplified version,

25 So you are to know and understand that from the issuance of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until [the coming of] the Messiah (the Anointed One), the Prince, there will be seven weeks [of years] and sixty-two weeks [of years]; it will be built again, with [a city] plaza and moat, even in times of trouble.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks [of years] the Anointed One will be cut off [and denied His Messianic kingdom] and have nothing [and no one to defend Him], and the people of the [other] prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.



In hindsight that is what happened right.

Wouldnt have happened if God hadn't allowed it to happen.
A repeat of Babylon destroying the city and temple.

The people of Israel were responsible for rejecting Jesus. The people had Cesear as their king and it backfired on them.

John 19:15
But they shouted, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are 2 princes in Daniel 9 (in my opinion): (1) Christ the Messiah, and (2) a prince that would oversee the destruction of Jerusalem.

Q. Who are “the people of the prince that shall come”?
A. The Roman soldiers.

The 2nd prince who was responsible for the destruction of the temple and the city was not Jesus. It was the Roman "prince." His people would come and destroy the temple and city in AD70.

I find that to be a viable interpretation and I also find covenantee's view to be viable. I also believe seeing it as referring to Jesus and "the people" as the Jews is viable in the sense that it was because of the Jews having rejected Him that their city and sanctuary was destroyed. They brought that upon themselves, so there is a sense in which they destroyed the city and the sanctuary. It all depends on whether it's talking about the people responsible for the city and sanctuary being destroyed (unbelieving Jews) or the people who actually destroyed the city and the sanctuary (the Roman armies).

Either way, it's talking about Jerusalem and it's temple being destroyed in 70 AD (as Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:1-2;15-22, Mark 13:14-20, Luke 21:20-24, Luke 19:41-44) and is not talking about some future Antichrist prince.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No bro. There is only one Individual identified as a prince in the passage.

He is Messiah the Prince.

It is He who was in command and control in 70 AD, using the Roman armies as His people to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon apostate Israel.

I don't see this as a major point of contention because it should be clear either way that it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 AD since Jesus referred to Daniel's prophecy in Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20, Luke 21:20-24) in relation to the destruction of the temple buildings standing at the time He was speaking.

With that being the case, the people destroying the city and the sanctuary have to either be the Romans armies (if it's talking about the ones who actually destroyed the city and the sanctuary) or the Jews (if it's talking about those who were responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary). And therefore the prince of those people can't be some future Antichrist as futurists claim. To me, the main takeaway from that part of the verse is that it cannot be talking about some future Antichrist since it's talking about something that occurred in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Amplified version,

25 So you are to know and understand that from the issuance of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until [the coming of] the Messiah (the Anointed One), the Prince, there will be seven weeks [of years] and sixty-two weeks [of years]; it will be built again, with [a city] plaza and moat, even in times of trouble.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks [of years] the Anointed One will be cut off [and denied His Messianic kingdom] and have nothing [and no one to defend Him], and the people of the [other] prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Looks like that translation is more of an interpretation of scripture rather than a translation. Adding the word "other" in front of prince in verse 26 is obviously an interpretation rather than a translation since the word "other" is not in the original manuscript. Just my two cents on that.

Anyway, you can see my other thoughts on this in my other posts. I don't think it matters much whether the prince is Jesus or a Roman leader from 70 AD (Caesar, Titus, whoever). Regardless, the prince cannot be some future Antichrist since it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 AD and I know we all (you, me, covenantee, WPM) agree on that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And take notice the last time Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned in the OT, how that ends. No wonder God said he was his servant.

Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Does that sound like that fits anything any of the Romans did after destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD?

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


This is how we should understand verse 26, like such? and the enemies of Christ that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Guess what, though? If that is meaning the Romans and 70 AD, and if the prince that shall come is meaning Christ, that equals how Preterists interpret Matthew 24 pertaining to the coming in verse 30. Preterists do not apply that verse to that of the 2nd coming in end of this age, they apply verse 30 to a coming in 70 AD instead.

Daniel 9:26 does not say this---and the people of the prince that already came earlier shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It says this instead---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. As in, this prince in question is still to come, not already came earlier. How can 'shall come' mean past tense rather than future tense?

Think about this. If one is interpreting Matthew 24:30 to be involving Christ's 2nd coming in the end of this age, then taking the prince in Daniel 9:26 to be meaning Christ, they are then agreeing with the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30, therefore, contradicting their interpretation of Matthew 24:30.

If 70 AD, the Romans, and the coming of Christ are meant in Daniel 9:26, that means, though clearly wrong, Matthew 24:30 would be supporting this interpretation of Daniel 9:26.

IOW, like such. and the people(the Romans) of the prince that shall come(supported by verse 30 in Matthew 24) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(meaning in 70 AD). That would be the only way to understand that verse if Christ is meaning the prince that shall come, as in the future, meaning after He already came earlier but was cut off. In verse 26 'shall come' can only mean one thing unless one is being dishonest with the text. It means this prince comes after a Prince already came earlier, meaning Christ of course, but was cut off.

IOW, no intellectually honest person is going to take 'shall come' to mean already came earlier, in relation to when the ppl of this prince comes and destroys the city and sanctuary. Only someone intellectually dishonest would take 'shall come' to mean already came earlier rather than still to come in the future, meaning post that of being cut off.

I don't understand the way you're thinking here. As of the time the prophecy was given, Messiah the prince was yet to come, right? So, verse 26 could be referring back to the prince that was yet to come, which was the Messiah. That's perfectly viable. But, you are going out of your way to say otherwise and making false accusations of intellectual dishonesty. The text in verse 26 does NOT say that "the prince that shall come" would come after the Messiah was cut off. You are only assuming that. You are adding to what it actually says.

It would look like this. The Messiah meant in verse 25 comes and is eventually cut off, which equals already came not shall come. Then sometime after that in the future shall come a prince, obviously not meaning Messiah in verse 25 unless one is a Preterist and finds that Matthew 24:30 can support that. Except not everyone are Preterists and interpret Matthew 24:30 like Preterists might.

For someone like me, Matthew 24:30 does not support that Christ shall come in 70 AD, thus disagrees that Christ can be meant as the prince that shall come after another prince already came earlier but was cut off. And once again, shall come is meaning future tense not past tense. Undeniably, there are two princes in Daniel 9:26 then, where one comes earlier but is cut-off, and that yet another one shall come after the first one was cut off. The only way the prince that shall come can be meaning Christ is if Preterists are interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly. And clearly they are not.

Regardless of anything you said here, the prince referenced in Daniel 9:26 cannot be a future Antichrist, as you believe (correct me if I'm wrong about that). The destruction of the city and the sanctuary is an obvious reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD that resulted from the Jews not accepting Messiah the prince's sacrifice for their sins. So, the prince referenced in Daniel 9:26 has to be someone who was alive in 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

I don't see this as a major point of contention because it should be clear either way that it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 AD since Jesus referred to Daniel's prophecy in Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20, Luke 21:20-24) in relation to the destruction of the temple buildings standing at the time He was speaking.

With that being the case, the people destroying the city and the sanctuary have to either be the Romans armies (if it's talking about the ones who actually destroyed the city and the sanctuary) or the Jews (if it's talking about those who were responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary). And therefore the prince of those people can't be some future Antichrist as futurists claim. To me, the main takeaway from that part of the verse is that it cannot be talking about some future Antichrist since it's talking about something that occurred in 70 AD.

Thanks bro. It is true that the Roman commander Titus was a prince. However, "the prince" in verse 26 is the grammatical referent of the "He's" in verse 27, and the "He's" in verse 27 are referring unmistakably to Messiah the Prince, not a Roman prince. Additionally the grammatical referent of "the prince" in verse 26 is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25. Thus, the prince is Messiah the Prince throughout, Scripturally, historically, and grammatically.

And of course, not some futurized fabled fallacious Antichrist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks bro. It is true that the Roman commander Titus was a prince. However, "the prince" in verse 26 is the grammatical referent of the "He's" in verse 27, and the "He's" in verse 27 are referring unmistakably to Messiah the Prince, not a Roman prince. Additionally the grammatical referent of "the prince" in verse 26 is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25. Thus, the prince is Messiah the Prince throughout, Scripturally, historically, and grammatically.

And of course, not some futurized fabled fallacious Antichrist.

Again, I think your view is viable. I'm going to keep thinking about it to see if I can take a firm stance on this one way or another. But, like I said, I think the main takeaway is that it's talking about something that happened in 70 AD and therefore the prince had to be alive in 70 AD (which Jesus, of course, was, and still is) and cannot be referring to a future Antichrist. Which then means verse 27 has to be referring to the Messiah confirming the new covenant. We're all (you, me, WPM, jeffweeder) in agreement on that much and I'm satisfied with that.

 

[Davidpt]

Regardless of anything you said here, the prince referenced in Daniel 9:26 cannot be a future Antichrist, as you believe (correct me if I'm wrong about that). The destruction of the city and the sanctuary is an obvious reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD that resulted from the Jews not accepting Messiah the prince's sacrifice for their sins. So, the prince referenced in Daniel 9:26 has to be someone who was alive in 70 AD.

Yet it matters if a nearest antecedent means anything. There has to be a nearest antecedent for the pronoun
'he' in verse 27, meaning this pronoun----And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

The last person mentioned in verse 26 is the prince that shall come. It then stands to reason that the he meant in verse 27 is meaning the prince that shall come in verse 26.

Let's look at this at least 2 ways for now. For the time being let's leave a future ac out of the equation.

The prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah in verse 25. And when He shall come it is meaning during 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. No problem if you are a Preterist. But what if you are not a Preterist and have been arguing forever that Christ never came in 70 AD, in any sense? Now you have to admit that your arguments have been in vain and that Preterists have been right all along, Christ did come in 70 AD and Daniel 9:26 proves it if the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah in verse 25, and that when He shall come, not already came earlier, it's during the events pertaining to 70 AD.

Now let's look at this this other way instead.

The prince that shall come in verse 26 is not meaning the Messiah in verse 25, it is meaning a future prince that comes, in this case it is meaning Titus. Since Titus would be the last person mentioned, thus the nearest antecedent for the he in verse 27, that means we have to interpret verse 27 to mean Titus fulfills the following---And Titus shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week Titus shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

I don't know of anyone who would agree with that interpretation or even interpret in that manner. Yet that is how it would have to be interpreted if Titus is the last person mentioned in verse 26, therefore, he has to be the he meant in verse 27.

The former is not a problem whatsoever if one is a Preterist, but is a major problem if one is not a Preterist and have been arguing against the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30 when that verse can support that Christ did come in 70 AD further proved by the fact that the prince that shall come in Daniel 9:26 is meaning Christ and when He shall come it is meaning 70 AD. Thus agrees, not disagrees, with the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30.

The latter, it's a no brainer. No way can Titus be meant as the prince that shall come in verse 26 since Titus can't even remotely fit the he that confirms the covenant with many for one week, nor fit the one that causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease in the midst of the week.

Unless there is another option for who the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning, we then either have to agree Preterists have been interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly all along or we have to agree with even more nonsense that Titus is meant in verse 26, keeping in mind that the he in verse 27 has to have a nearest antecedent and that it has to be the prince that come since he is the last person mentioned in verse 26. Or if not any of that we then have to pretend that the he in verse 27 does not have a nearest antecedent nor does it require one.

There is a logical way around all of this where I would need to explain that in a future post since this post is already lengthy as is. It's something I have already proposed, I think in my thread that I started awhile back, basically involving this same topic as the OP here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yet it matters if a nearest antecedent means anything. There has to be a nearest antecedent for the pronoun
'he' in verse 27, meaning this pronoun----And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

The nearest antecedent is the Messiah because He is the last person focused on before verse 27. In verse 26, it is not "the prince" who is in focus there, it is "the people of the prince". So, that makes the antecedent the Messiah.

The last person mentioned in verse 26 is the prince that shall come.

He is mentioned, but is not the antecedent because what it says there is not about what he would do, but about what his people would do. I think you need to learn what the term antecedent means.

It then stands to reason that the he meant in verse 27 is meaning the prince that shall come in verse 26.

Nope. Let's put your logic to the test.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Who is the last person mentioned before "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan"? The Lord. Jesus. So, does that mean the Lord Jesus is the antecedent for "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan"? Of course not, right? No, the antecedent for "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" is "that Wicked", otherwise known as "the man of sin". So, you need to rethink how you are interpreting Daniel 9:26-27.

Let's look at this at least 2 ways for now. For the time being let's leave a future ac out of the equation.

The prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah in verse 25. And when He shall come it is meaning during 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. No problem if you are a Preterist.

(Sigh). You don't have to be a Preterist in order to believe that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple happened in 70 AD.

But what if you are not a Preterist

I'm not.

and have been arguing forever that Christ never came in 70 AD, in any sense? Now you have to admit that your arguments have been in vain and that Preterists have been right all along, Christ did come in 70 AD and Daniel 9:26 proves it if the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah in verse 25, and that when He shall come, not already came earlier, it's during the events pertaining to 70 AD.

No no no no no. No. Goodness sakes. You obviously missed the point I already made about this. As of the time the prophecy was written, Messiah the Prince was yet to come, right? Obviously. So, when it refers to "the prince that shall come" it's only saying the prince would come at some point in the future as of the time the prophecy was given. So, what that verse could be saying then is "the people of the previously mentioned prince (Messiah the prince) who will come some time in the future from now (from the time the prophecy was made) will destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's a perfectly viable way to see it if it's talking about the people responsible for the city and the sanctuary being destroyed, which were the unbelieving Jews of the first century.

Now let's look at this this other way instead.

The prince that shall come in verse 26 is not meaning the Messiah in verse 25, it is meaning a future prince that comes, in this case it is meaning Titus. Since Titus would be the last person mentioned, thus the nearest antecedent for the he in verse 27, that means we have to interpret verse 27 to mean Titus fulfills the following---And Titus shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week Titus shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

LOL. Again, the antecedent for "he" in verse 27 is the Messiah since he is the last person who has the focus primarily on him. The prince in verse 26 is not the focus there, it is instead "the people of the prince". You are mistaken.

I don't know of anyone who would agree with that interpretation or even interpret in that manner. Yet that is how it would have to be interpreted if Titus is the last person mentioned in verse 26, therefore, he has to be the he meant in verse 27.

Not true.

The former is not a problem whatsoever if one is a Preterist, but is a major problem if one is not a Preterist and have been arguing against the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30 when that verse can support that Christ did come in 70 AD further proved by the fact that the prince that shall come in Daniel 9:26 is meaning Christ and when He shall come it is meaning 70 AD. Thus agrees, not disagrees, with the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30.

Wrong.

The latter, it's a no brainer. No way can Titus be meant as the prince that shall come in verse 26 since Titus can't even remotely fit the he that confirms the covenant with many for one week, nor fit the one that causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease in the midst of the week.

If the prince mentioned in verse 26 was Titus and was the antecedent to the "he" of verse 27, that would be true. But, that is not the case. Your lack of understanding of what makes something an antecedent has caused you to miss what the prophecy is about. That's unfortunate.

Unless there is another option for who the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning,

You were already presented with that option before making this post and you apparently just ignored it.

we then either have to agree Preterists have been interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly all along or we have to agree with even more nonsense that Titus is meant in verse 26, keeping in mind that the he in verse 27 has to have a nearest antecedent and that it has to be the prince that come since he is the last person mentioned in verse 26. Or if not any of that we then have to pretend that the he in verse 27 does not have a nearest antecedent nor does it require one.

Nope. Please learn what the term antecedent actually means and then maybe you will understand how to properly interpret Daniel 9:24-27.

 

[Davidpt]

Unless there is another option for who the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning, we then either have to agree Preterists have been interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly all along or we have to agree with even more nonsense that Titus is meant in verse 26, keeping in mind that the he in verse 27 has to have a nearest antecedent and that it has to be the prince that come since he is the last person mentioned in verse 26. Or if not any of that we then have to pretend that the he in verse 27 does not have a nearest antecedent nor does it require one.

There is a logical way around all of this where I would need to explain that in a future post since this post is already lengthy as is. It's something I have already proposed, I think in my thread that I started awhile back, basically involving this same topic as the OP here.

Since that post was getting too lengthy already, I will then use this post to show a logical way around the problems encountered with the prince that shall come and the he meant in verse 27.

Instead of reading verse 26 and 27 like such...

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

Try reading it like this instead.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. 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 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. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

IOW, all of this is involving the 70th week. Which then means there has to be a gap after the middle of the 70th week, therefore, meaning that the 2nd half is not meant to be taken in a literal sense involving a literal city and a literal sanctuary. It is simply involving the city and sanctuary that Christ spiritually begins building as the result of him being cut off, thus His death followed by His resurrection. Then when the church age has expired, thus the church age equaling when this spiritual city and sanctuary are being built, the beast then rises out of the pit, thus pertaining to it's 42 month reign, the latter half of the 70th week then begins and is fulfilled, therefore, setting out to destroy this spiritual city and sanctuary that was built during the church age.

But let's just ignore a good portion of the NT and read and interpret Daniel 9:26-27 in a vacuum instead. At least we are in good company if we do that, meaning we have plenty of Preterists to agree with rather than a good portion of the NT to agree with instead.

Even if one can't get on board with all of that, it at least solves the problem with who the nearest antecedent of the he in verse 27 is pertaining to in verse 26.

If read like this---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. 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--it is obvious who the he is meaning in verse 27.

Equally, if read like this---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. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--it is obvious who this pronoun he in verse 27 is referring to in verse 26.

Interpreting it like this we are no longer obligated to agree with the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30 since Matthew 24:30 would now be irrelevant. Matthew 24:30 is only relevant if verse 26 and 27 are being read as is rather than this other way to read it that I proposed..

 

[Davidpt]

The nearest antecedent is the Messiah because He is the last person focused on before verse 27. In verse 26, it is not "the prince" who is in focus there, it is "the people of the prince". So, that makes the antecedent the Messiah.


He is mentioned, but is not the antecedent because what it says there is not about what he would do, but about what his people would do. I think you need to learn what the term antecedent means.


Nope. Let's put your logic to the test.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Who is the last person mentioned before "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan"? The Lord. Jesus. So, does that mean the Lord Jesus is the antecedent for "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan"? Of course not, right? No, the antecedent for "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" is "that Wicked", otherwise known as "the man of sin". So, you need to rethink how you are interpreting Daniel 9:26-27.


(Sigh). You don't have to be a Preterist in order to believe that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple happened in 70 AD.


I'm not.


No no no no no. No. Goodness sakes. You obviously missed the point I already made about this. As of the time the prophecy was written, Messiah the Prince was yet to come, right? Obviously. So, when it refers to "the prince that shall come" it's only saying the prince would come at some point in the future as of the time the prophecy was given. So, what that verse could be saying then is "the people of the previously mentioned prince (Messiah the prince) who will come some time in the future from now (from the time the prophecy was made) will destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's a perfectly viable way to see it if it's talking about the people responsible for the city and the sanctuary being destroyed, which were the unbelieving Jews of the first century.


LOL. Again, the antecedent for "he" in verse 27 is the Messiah since he is the last person who has the focus primarily on him. The prince in verse 26 is not the focus there, it is instead "the people of the prince". You are mistaken.


Not true.


Wrong.


If the prince mentioned in verse 26 was Titus and was the antecedent to the "he" of verse 27, that would be true. But, that is not the case. Your lack of understanding of what makes something an antecedent has caused you to miss what the prophecy is about. That's unfortunate.


You were already presented with that option before making this post and you apparently just ignored it.


Nope. Please learn what the term antecedent actually means and then maybe you will understand how to properly interpret Daniel 9:24-27.

When I submitted my last post #38, I was unaware of your post here at the time. I'm getting ready to eat supper so I need to revisit your post here after I eat and then try and address some of it after that. Right now I can't give the full attention to your post that it at least deserves.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Since that post was getting too lengthy already, I will then use this post to show a logical way around the problems encountered with the prince that shall come and the he meant in verse 27.

There is no problem with that for many of us. You are creating one for yourself with your faulty understanding of what an antecedent is, as I explained to you in my previous post.

Instead of reading verse 26 and 27 like such...

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

Try reading it like this instead.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. 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 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. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

IOW, all of this is involving the 70th week.

That's your false assumption. You have no proof that everything described there has to fall within the 70th week. Only anything described there that relates to what is written in Daniel 9:24 would have to fall within the 70th week. Since Christ's death is crucial to fulfilling the things listed in Daniel 9:24, then His death must fall within the 70th week. But the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is not something that fulfills any of the things listed in Daniel 9:24 that Daniel said had to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks.

Which then means there has to be a gap after the middle of the 70th week, therefore, meaning that the 2nd half is not meant to be taken in a literal sense involving a literal city and a literal sanctuary. It is simply involving the city and sanctuary that Christ spiritually begins building as the result of him being cut off, thus His death followed by His resurrection. Then when the church age has expired, thus the church age equaling when this spiritual city and sanctuary are being built, the beast then rises out of the pit, thus pertaining to it's 42 month reign, the latter half of the 70th week then begins and is fulfilled, therefore, setting out to destroy this spiritual city and sanctuary that was built during the church age.

Hold on here. You're missing or forgetting something very important about the spiritual city and sanctuary that Christ has been building for a long time now. It can't be destroyed. The gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). But, Daniel 9:26 talks about a city and sanctuary that would be destroyed for certain, not a city and sanctuary that people would attempt to destroy and fail to do so. It says "the people of the prince that shall come SHALL DESTROY the city and the sanctuary", not "the people of the prince that shall come shall TRY TO DESTROY the city and the sanctuary, but will fail to do so". So, you are taking the verse completely out of context while not realizing you are contradicting other scripture in the process.

It's so clear that you are approaching Daniel 9:26-27 with doctrinal bias. Try interpreting objectively once and see what happens.

But let's just ignore a good portion of the NT and read and interpret Daniel 9:26-27 in a vacuum instead. At least we are in good company if we do that, meaning we have plenty of Preterists to agree with rather than a good portion of the NT to agree with instead.

Even if one can't get on board with all of that, it at least solves the problem with who the nearest antecedent of the he in verse 27 is pertaining to in verse 26.

There is no argument about what the nearest antecedent of the "he" in verse 27 is if you actually understand grammar and understand what an antecedent actually is. Why are you trying to change what an antecedent is? It refers back to the last individual in focus before verse 27. That is clearly the Messiah. When it mentions "the prince" in verse 26, the focus is not on the prince, but rather "the people of the prince". So, the prince cannot be the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27. This is a fact because this is how antecedents work.