Confirming of the Covenant - Daniel 9:27

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

I responded to that post already, not realizing you hadn't read my other post. My response was based on thinking you had already read that, so please disregard anything I said which was based on that assumption. Like what I said at the beginning where I said I already explained something to you in my previous post. I said that without realizing you hadn't read it yet. So, just ignore that.

 

[Davidpt]

I want to focus on this below for now and see where that goes, if anywhere.

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.

If the prince to come is not in focus here, why even mention it then? Why not something like this instead?

and the people 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.

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's funny though, that even Preterists who argue there is no gap in the 70 weeks, they argue that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is the same he meant in verse 27 pertaining to the covenant and the causing of sacrifices to cease. Since you and these Preterists both argue there are no gaps in the 70 weeks, why does that then mean only you are understanding correctly what the term antecedent means, and that these Preterists aren't?

Not to mention, apparently there are also scholars that don't conclude the 70 weeks have a gap but do take the pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning the last person mentioned in verse 26. Apparently then, going by your reasoning of things here, these scholars also need to learn what the term antecedent means. I find that laughable of course, you not being a scholar yourself, that you would then be advising scholars that they need to learn what the term antecedent means. After all, it would be cherry picking to only apply that to me but not to any scholars doing the same.

 

[covenantee]

Apparently then, going by your reasoning of things here, these scholars also need to learn what the term antecedent means. I find that laughable of course, you not being a scholar yourself, that you would then be advising scholars that they need to learn what the term antecedent means. After all, it would be cherry picking to only apply that to me but not to any scholars doing the same.

A whole lot of modernist "scholars" do indeed need to learn what the term "antecedent" (aka "referent") means, because instead of following the referent chain from Daniel 9:27 back to its source at Messiah the Prince, they contrive an "antiMessiah", i.e. antichrist, and impose it on the inspired Word.

There is not one instance of any recognized scholar of the historical orthodox true Christian Church prior to the 19th century, associating Daniel 9:27 with antichrist. There exists no word in OT Hebrew for "antichrist". It is interpretation by imagination or hallucination.

Not one instance.

 

[Davidpt]

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.

And what you are missing here is that I take this spiritual city and sanctuary to mean the ppl themselves, thus the saints that become saved during the church age, and then I apply what is recorded in Daniel 8 per the following, for example, to that of what is recorded in verse 26 in Daniel 9 pertaining to destroying the city and sanctuary.

In Daniel 9:26 the Hebrew word for destroy is shachath


shachath
shaw-khath'
a primitive root; to decay, i.e. (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively):--batter, cast off, corrupt(-er, thing), destroy(-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste(-r).

shachath is also used in the following passages in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting(shachath) her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.



Daniel 11:17 aside since there appears to be no connection to that, what about what is recorded in Daniel 8:24, 25, per the following? Then notice something relevant here. When shachath is being used elsewhere in the book of Daniel it appears to never mean destroying, as in destroying literal buildings, etc. I'm not insisting that is true of shachath in general, that it never means destroying something literal, such as buildings, etc. I'm only meaning how it is used elsewhere in the book of Daniel where it seems to mainly mean corrupting someone. Why would Daniel 9:26 be the odd man out and be meaning in the literal sense involving destroying literal buildings when it is not meaning in that sense anywhere else in the book of Daniel?

and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully

and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people

and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many

All of this obviously pertaining to what is recorded in Daniel 8:9-14. But then notice what time period verse 25 is applying this to---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.


It is beyond unreasonable to on one hand fully agree that Jesus is worthy of the title King of kings, Lord of lords, then on the other hand entirely disagree that He is also worthy of the title of the Prince of princes, that that title fits someone else way way way better than it does Him. Yeah, right. Clearly then, the Prince of princes is meaning Christ, therefore, it is ludicrous that the popular interpretation that has the little horn in Daniel 8 meaning A4E, that this is the correct interpretation. No it isn't. Christ wasn't even born yet when A4E was living. Therefore, it is preposterous that this---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand--can fit A4E somehow.

To summarize, I simply take this in Daniel 8:24-25---and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully--and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people--and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many--to be involving this in Daniel 9:26--and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Who might the ppl of the prince be meaning if not pertaining to 70 AD? How about this for one, below? And why not? Clearly, a literal city and a literal temple is not meant per the following.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


There is your city and sanctuary being destroyed in Daniel 9:26, and the people of the prince that are doing it are the Gentiles meant in verse 2. obviously.

The way some of you interpret some Scriptures in a vacuum at times, then complain when Preterists do the same with much of the NT by having it all involve the first century up until 70 AD, it then makes one wonder why God even bothered revealing to Paul what He revealed to him per 2 Thessalonians 2 and what all that involves, and why God even bothered to reveal to John what He revealed to him per the book of Revelation and what all that involves, if exceptionally smart ppl such as yourself are unwilling to look any further than 70 AD pertaining to what is recorded in Daniel 9:24-27? I would get it if you were a Preterist or something. Yet you are not a Preterist, therefore, I don't get it.

 

[Keraz]

There will be a new Temple in Jerusalem and the end times leader of the secular peoples, will desecrate it;

Haggai 2:6-9 In a little while, I shall shake the heavens, the earth, the sea and all the nations. I will fill this House with their treasures. This latter House will be greater than former. In this place, I shall grant prosperity and peace.
[The Second Temple was not greater than Solomon’s Temple]

Zechariah 1:16-17 These are the words of the Lord; I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion, My House is to be rebuilt there. My cities will again brim with prosperity, once again the Lord will comfort Zion and make Jerusalem the city of His choice.

2 Thess 2:3-4 The Return of Jesus cannot come until the man doomed to destruction is revealed and enthrones himself in God’s Temple, claiming to be God.
What could be clearer than that? The Temple must be rebuilt before the Tribulation.

Daniel 9:27....he will put a stop to the sacrifices and offerings, then will set up an abomination in the Holy place.
The 'he', there cannot be Jesus, he will be the beast, the Anti-Christ of Revelation 13.

 

[Douggg]

There will be a new Temple in Jerusalem and the end times leader of the secular peoples, will desecrate it;

Haggai 2:6-9 In a little while, I shall shake the heavens, the earth, the sea and all the nations. I will fill this House with their treasures. This latter House will be greater than former. In this place, I shall grant prosperity and peace.
[The Second Temple was not greater than Solomon’s Temple]

Zechariah 1:16-17 These are the words of the Lord; I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion, My House is to be rebuilt there. My cities will again brim with prosperity, once again the Lord will comfort Zion and make Jerusalem the city of His choice.

2 Thess 2:3-4 The Return of Jesus cannot come until the man doomed to destruction is revealed and enthrones himself in God’s Temple, claiming to be God.
What could be clearer than that? The Temple must be rebuilt before the Tribulation.

Daniel 9:27....he will put a stop to the sacrifices and offerings, then will set up an abomination in the Holy place.
The 'he', there cannot be Jesus, he will be the beast, the Anti-Christ of Revelation 13.

Keraz, don't you view that Jesus returns in 2034 ? Making the 7 years begin in 2027 ? And Gog/Magog happening right before the 7 years?

That only leaves three years for your projected solar flare event > depopulation of current Israel > global Christian migration there to build a nation of Beulah > Gog/Magog > seven year treaty with a global leader.....scenario.

 

[Keraz]

Keraz, don't you view that Jesus returns in 2034 ? Making the 7 years begin in 2027 ? And Gog/Magog happening right before the 7 years?

That only leaves three years for your projected solar flare event > depopulation of current Israel > global Christian migration there to build a nation of Beulah > Gog/Magog > seven year treaty with a global leader.....scenario.

I see things happening quite quickly. For instance; Isaiah 29:17 In a very short time Lebanon, [the holy Land] will become a garden land.

The trigger which will commence all the end time events, will be Iran attempting to nuke Israel. Iran has just commissioned new centrifuges to purify uranium, for one purpose; to wipe Israel off the map. Their chance will come when Isaiah 3:1-7 and Micah 5:1, are fulfilled.

 

[Douggg]

The trigger which will commence all the end time events, will be Iran attempting to nuke Israel. Iran has just commissioned new centrifuges to purify uranium, for one purpose; to wipe Israel off the map. Their chance will come when Isaiah 3:1-7 and Micah 5:1, are fulfilled.

If Iran is depopulated as a result of their attempt, then Iran would not be able to be a part of the Gog/Magog event in Ezekiel 38, as Persia.

Ezekiel 38:5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:

......so I don't see that scenario that you have laid out as happening.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I want to focus on this below for now and see where that goes, if anywhere.

If the prince to come is not in focus here, why even mention it then? Why not something like this instead?

and the people 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.

We can only guess about that, of course, but I believe the prince is mentioned there because the intention was to show which people it would be that would destroy the city and the sanctuary. To just mention people destroying the city and the sanctuary without giving any indication as to which people they are would be pretty strange.

Regardless, the prince is not the focus there and instead it is the people of the prince. Why are you not addressing that? Who does it say would destroy the city and the sanctuary? The people or the prince? Obviously, the people. That it gives an indication of which people it would be does not change the fact that it is the people in focus there and not the prince. So, the mention of the prince in verse 26 is not the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27, it is instead the reference to "Messiah".

It's funny though, that even Preterists who argue there is no gap in the 70 weeks, they argue that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is the same he meant in verse 27 pertaining to the covenant and the causing of sacrifices to cease.

Say what now? What Preterists say that? My understanding is that most Preterists would say "the prince" in verse 26 is Titus or some other first century Roman leader. And they don't say that the "he" in verse 27 is Titus, they say it is Jesus. So, what are you talking about here?

Since you and these Preterists both argue there are no gaps in the 70 weeks, why does that then mean only you are understanding correctly what the term antecedent means, and that these Preterists aren't?

LOL. Only me? David, please get serious. I am far from the only one who believes that the antecedent to the "he" in verse 27 is "Messiah" in verse 26. I honestly couldn't care less what Preterists think. And I highly doubt that all Preterists claim that "the prince" is the antecedent to the "he" in verse 27. I would think most Preterists do not believe that.

Not to mention, apparently there are also scholars that don't conclude the 70 weeks have a gap but do take the pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning the last person mentioned in verse 26. Apparently then, going by your reasoning of things here, these scholars also need to learn what the term antecedent means.

That's correct. Let me show you once again how your (and their) understanding of antecedents can lead to some very ridiculous conclusions.

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,

Using the same kind of logic you use to determine the antecedent in Daniel 9:26-27, we would have to conclude that the antecedent to "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" in verse 9 above is "the Lord" because He is the last individual mentioned before that. But, that is obviously not who "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" is referring to! It instead is referring to "that Wicked".

So, can you see how flawed your approach to Daniel 9:26-27 is? Using that same approach in the passage above would lead to the conclusion that the Lord is 'him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"! Which would obviously be a ridiculous conclusion. And that is what you're doing with Daniel 9:26-27. Instead of recognizing that Jesus is the "he" in verse 27 you are saying it's some future Antichrist instead. You couldn't be more off base if you tried.

I find that laughable of course, you not being a scholar yourself, that you would then be advising scholars that they need to learn what the term antecedent means.

Yet, there are plenty of scholars who agree with me, so what you're saying here is absolutely pointless. Being scholarly is clearly not the key to properly understanding scripture or else all scholars would agree on these things. But, they definitely do not all agree. It's laughable that you act as if they do. What does 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 indicate is necessary for understanding the deeper things in scripture like we talk about on this forum? Being scholarly? Or having spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit?

After all, it would be cherry picking to only apply that to me but not to any scholars doing the same.

I agree. I apply it to them, also. Scholars are prone to doctrinal bias just as much as anyone else.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And what you are missing here is that I take this spiritual city and sanctuary to mean the ppl themselves, thus the saints that become saved during the church age, and then I apply what is recorded in Daniel 8 per the following, for example, to that of what is recorded in verse 26 in Daniel 9 pertaining to destroying the city and sanctuary.

In Daniel 9:26 the Hebrew word for destroy is shachath


shachath
shaw-khath'
a primitive root; to decay, i.e. (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively):--batter, cast off, corrupt(-er, thing), destroy(-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste(-r).

shachath is also used in the following passages in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting(shachath) her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.



Daniel 11:17 aside since there appears to be no connection to that, what about what is recorded in Daniel 8:24, 25, per the following? Then notice something relevant here. When shachath is being used elsewhere in the book of Daniel it appears to never mean destroying, as in destroying literal buildings, etc. I'm not insisting that is true of shachath in general, that it never means destroying something literal, such as buildings, etc. I'm only meaning how it is used elsewhere in the book of Daniel where it seems to mainly mean corrupting someone. Why would Daniel 9:26 be the odd man out and be meaning in the literal sense involving destroying literal buildings when it is not meaning in that sense anywhere else in the book of Daniel?

and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully

and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people

and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many

All of this obviously pertaining to what is recorded in Daniel 8:9-14. But then notice what time period verse 25 is applying this to---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.


It is beyond unreasonable to on one hand fully agree that Jesus is worthy of the title King of kings, Lord of lords, then on the other hand entirely disagree that He is also worthy of the title of the Prince of princes, that that title fits someone else way way way better than it does Him. Yeah, right. Clearly then, the Prince of princes is meaning Christ, therefore, it is ludicrous that the popular interpretation that has the little horn in Daniel 8 meaning A4E, that this is the correct interpretation. No it isn't. Christ wasn't even born yet when A4E was living. Therefore, it is preposterous that this---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand--can fit A4E somehow.

To summarize, I simply take this in Daniel 8:24-25---and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully--and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people--and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many--to be involving this in Daniel 9:26--and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Who might the ppl of the prince be meaning if not pertaining to 70 AD? How about this for one, below? And why not? Clearly, a literal city and a literal temple is not meant per the following.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


There is your city and sanctuary being destroyed in Daniel 9:26, and the people of the prince that are doing it are the Gentiles meant in verse 2. obviously.

The way some of you interpret some Scriptures in a vacuum at times, then complain when Preterists do the same with much of the NT by having it all involve the first century up until 70 AD, it then makes one wonder why God even bothered revealing to Paul what He revealed to him per 2 Thessalonians 2 and what all that involves, and why God even bothered to reveal to John what He revealed to him per the book of Revelation and what all that involves, if exceptionally smart ppl such as yourself are unwilling to look any further than 70 AD pertaining to what is recorded in Daniel 9:24-27? I would get it if you were a Preterist or something. Yet you are not a Preterist, therefore, I don't get it.

I believe the truth is always far simpler than futurists and preterists make it out to be. Both groups often try to relate unrelated scripture. There's no balance in either view. To futurists, almost everything in Bible prophecy that isn't about the first coming of Christ is yet to be fulfilled. To preterists, almost everything that isn't about the first coming of Christ is related to things that happened in the first century, especially around 70 AD. You said "I don't get it". Well, I don't get your approach to scripture, either. Why you think that everyone should either be a futurist or a preterist is beyond me. Bible prophecy talks about things that would happen in the first century to certain churches in the ancient Roman province of Asia (Revelation 2-3 certainly proves that), things related to 70 AD, things that would happen after that on an ongoing basis, things that would happen just before Christ returns, and things that would happen on the day Christ returns. Putting the focus all on the past or all on the future makes no sense.

Anyway, what you said here is incredibly convoluted. Is it really supposed to be that complicated? I don't believe so. I see no basis for relating all those other prophecies to the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. I believe it is its own prophecy about a particular 70 week time period and those other prophecies are not directly related to it. I believe that is the prophecy in particular that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20, Luke 21:20-24). And it's very clear to me that Jesus was talking about the literal destruction of the city and the sanctuary because He very specifically talked about the literal, physical destruction of the city and the sanctuary shortly before giving His Olivet discourse (Luke 19:41-44, Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:6-7). You try to relate the prophecy to other prophecies in Daniel, but why not relate it to what Jesus said in the 4 passages I just referenced?

 

[Davidpt]

A whole lot of modernist "scholars" do indeed need to learn what the term "antecedent" (aka "referent") means, because instead of following the referent chain from Daniel 9:27 back to its source at Messiah the Prince, they contrive an "antiMessiah", i.e. antichrist, and impose it on the inspired Word.

There is not one instance of any recognized scholar of the historical orthodox true Christian Church prior to the 19th century, associating Daniel 9:27 with antichrist. There exists no word in OT Hebrew for "antichrist". It is interpretation by imagination or hallucination.

Not one instance.

And what did I say in regards to scholars? Did I not say that there are apparently some scholars, who, like you, conclude there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks yet insist that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Per this scenario, regardless if they are past scholars or modern ones, obviously they are not taking the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac.

As to you I don't get your point to begin with, the fact you have the prince that shall come being the Messiah in verse 25. Is not the last person mentioned in verse 26 the prince that shall come, thus the Messiah in your case? And do you not have the last person mentioned in verse 26 being who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Does this then mean you need to take your own advice in regards to what you indicated a whole lot of modernist "scholars" need to learn? After all, what I'm arguing here is not who or who not the prince that shall come is meaning, I'm arguing that this last person mentioned in verse 26 has to be who the first pronoun in verse 27 is meaning if one is reading verse 26 and 27 as is.

But then I proposed another way to read it where it is then crystal clear who the pronouns in verse 27 are referring to in verse 26. That being the following.

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.

The reason why you might take issue with reading it like this, is obvious. Because this undeniably proves, assuming this is a valid way to read that, that you are 100% incorrect that the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning the Messiah in verse 25, thus is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27. In spite of that, your reasoning is, the prince that shall come is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27 since that pronoun is meaning the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26, and that the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26 is meaning this same prince that shall come.

Yet, if what I proposed above is a valid way to read verse 26 and 27, it debunks your reasoning, not supports it. And why would this be such a bad thing since this is basically killing 2 birds with one stone? Meaning it also debunks, not supports, any interpretation that takes a gap to be meaning between the 69th and 70th week, therefore, making the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac rather than Christ according to that reasoning. Clearly, a future ac is found in the text in verses 26 and 27, but not between the 69th and 70th week, but after the middle of the 70th week.

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.


Reading it like this, the former is meaning up until the middle of the week, thus no future ac to see in the text anywhere here.

While the latter is meaning after the middle of the 70th week followed by a long pause in the 70 weeks, this long pause explained by the NT church age that must precede the final days of this age prior to the beast rising out of the pit, then fulfilling it's 42 month reign. Therefore, it is in this latter section if reading it like this where a future ac can be found hidden in the text pertaining to verse 26 and 27.

 

[Douggg]

And what did I say in regards to scholars? Did I not say that there are apparently some scholars, who, like you, conclude there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks yet insist that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Per this scenario, regardless if they are past scholars or modern ones, obviously they are not taking the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac.

As to you I don't get your point to begin with, the fact you have the prince that shall come being the Messiah in verse 25. Is not the last person mentioned in verse 26 the prince that shall come, thus the Messiah in your case? And do you not have the last person mentioned in verse 26 being who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Does this then mean you need to take your own advice in regards to what you indicated a whole lot of modernist "scholars" need to learn? After all, what I'm arguing here is not who or who not the prince that shall come is meaning, I'm arguing that this last person mentioned in verse 26 has to be who the first pronoun in verse 27 is meaning if one is reading verse 26 and 27 as is.

But then I proposed another way to read it where it is then crystal clear who the pronouns in verse 27 are referring to in verse 26. That being the following.

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.

The reason why you might take issue with reading it like this, is obvious. Because this undeniably proves, assuming this is a valid way to read that, that you are 100% incorrect that the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning the Messiah in verse 25, thus is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27. In spite of that, your reasoning is, the prince that shall come is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27 since that pronoun is meaning the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26, and that the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26 is meaning this same prince that shall come.

Yet, if what I proposed above is a valid way to read verse 26 and 27, it debunks your reasoning, not supports it. And why would this be such a bad thing since this is basically killing 2 birds with one stone? Meaning it also debunks, not supports, any interpretation that takes a gap to be meaning between the 69th and 70th week, therefore, making the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac rather than Christ according to that reasoning. Clearly, a future ac is found in the text in verses 26 and 27, but not between the 69th and 70th week, but after the middle of the 70th week.

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.


Reading it like this, the former is meaning up until the middle of the week, thus no future ac to see in the text anywhere here.

While the latter is meaning after the middle of the 70th week followed by a long pause in the 70 weeks, this long pause explained by the NT church age that must precede the final days of this age prior to the beast rising out of the pit, then fulfilling it's 42 month reign. Therefore, it is in this latter section if reading it like this where a future ac can be found hidden in the text pertaining to verse 26 and 27.

The prince who shall come is the time of the end little horn person who will stop the daily sacrifice as it says in Daniel 8:11.

In Daniel 9:23-24, Gabriel said that he had come to give Daniel understanding about that time of the end little horn vision, which in Daniel 8:27 Daniel although astonished by it, indicated that the really did not understand it.

Daniel 9:
23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

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.

The vision involving the little horn and other time of the end prophecies revealed to Daniel.

The prince who shall come, the confirmation of the covenant for 7 years, the stopping of the daily sacrifice - is all about what the little horn person will do in the 7 year time of the end 70th week of Daniel 9:27.

GRAMMAR OF WHO THE "HE" IS IN DANIEL 9:27 IS NOT THE ISSUE. The time of the end vision and prophecy involving the little horn is the issue.

 

[Keraz]

If Iran is depopulated as a result of their attempt, then Iran would not be able to be a part of the Gog/Magog event in Ezekiel 38, as Persia.

Ezekiel 38:5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:

......so I don't see that scenario that you have laid out as happening.

Read Jeremiah 49:33-38, where it says the leader and his supporters, [king and princes, KJV] will be destroyed, but the rest of the population will be scattered to every nation. So, many descended from ancient Persia will join Gog.

It is your shuffling of the Prophesies and the foolish anytime rapture, that will not happen.

 

[Keraz]

GRAMMAR OF WHO THE "HE" IS IN DANIEL 9:27 IS NOT THE ISSUE. The time of the end vision and prophecy involving the little horn is the issue.

Jesus made that clear in Matthew 24:15........let the reader understand.
The Abomination of Desolation, as Daniel describes, remains unfulfilled. Therefore: it will happen in the end times; exactly 1260 days before Jesus Returns. Rev 13

 

[Davidpt]

The prince who shall come is the time of the end little horn person who will stop the daily sacrifice as it says in Daniel 8:11.

I fully 100% agree with that. But the question is, how does he do that? In a literal sense involving the rebuilding of a literal temple? Or in another sense altogether having zero to do with having to rebuild a literal temmple in order to accomplish this? In my view, clearly this is connected to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. In my view, maybe not in your view or someone elses view, I do not take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense.

Clearly, and even you shouldn't have any disagreement with the folowing, but then again, who knows, maybe you might. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, that pertains to the 2nd half of the 70th week, not the first half as well. There is no one during the first half of the 70th week doing what the one in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is doing at the time. In my view, the one during the 2nd half of the 70th week is trying to undo what someone else already did during the first half of the 70th week, meaning what Christ accomplished at the time.

Basically then, I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Christ fulfilled the daily sacrifice, and in the future the ac comes along and takes the fulfilling of that away by making himself out to be God, making him the object of worship rather than the true God. It is also connected with causing many to fall away, because if they are now worshiping the beast instead, they have made the fulfilling of the daily sacrifice by Christ null and of no affect, meaning in their case. Thus the daily sacrifice has been taken away. IOW, throwing a major monkey wrench into everything Christ accomplished. Of course though, the ac doesn't succeed since we all know how it ends. Yet he does succeed in regards to those he causes to fall away, though.

Those that interpret Daniel 9:24-27 to only be involving no time period later than 70 AD are interpreting that in a vacuum, something mainly Preterists are notorious for, except some of these are not even Preterists. Go figure. I don't know what it is about Daniel 9:26-27 where one insists all of that needs to be taken in the literal sense? Clearly, once Christ died and rose, we are now dealing with things in a spiritual sense not a literal sense, involving the temple of God and things like that. The middle of the week is where this transition began. At this point is building a new city and a new sanctuary, and it is this same new city and a new sanctuary that is under attack by the enemy from that point on. This is the city and sanctuary Daniel 9:26 is focusing on, not the ones in 70 AD instead.

 

[Douggg]

Read Jeremiah 49:33-38, where it says the leader and his supporters, [king and princes, KJV] will be destroyed, but the rest of the population will be scattered to every nation. So, many descended from ancient Persia will join Gog.

We will see, if the Lord is willing.

 

[Douggg]

I fully 100% agree with that. But the question is, how does he do that? In a literal sense involving the rebuilding of a literal temple?

Would you agree that what is preventing the building of a literal temple is the Muslim presence on the temple mount and the powder keg that would be set off if the Jews were to try ?

 

[Davidpt]

Would you agree that what is preventing the building of a literal temple is the Muslim presence on the temple mount and the powder keg that would be set off if the Jews were to try ?

While that might be true, it is a moot point if these things are pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that is involving, including a major falling away, if 2 Thessaonians 2:4 is not meaning in the literal sense to begin with.

Assuming one agreed that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not meaning in a literal sense, what else is there in the NT that might support the rebuilding of a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem, thus supporting your interpretation of Daniel 9:27? Keep in mind, I said in the NT not the OT.

 

[Douggg]

Assuming one agreed that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not meaning in a literal sense, what else is there in the NT that might support the rebuilding of of a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem, thus supporting your interpretation of Daniel 9:27? Keep in mind, I said in the NT not the OT.

John, in Revelation 11:1-2 was told to measure the inner court of the temple of God.

Revelation 11:
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

 

[covenantee]

And what did I say in regards to scholars? Did I not say that there are apparently some scholars, who, like you, conclude there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks yet insist that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Per this scenario, regardless if they are past scholars or modern ones, obviously they are not taking the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac.

No disagreement.

As to you I don't get your point to begin with, the fact you have the prince that shall come being the Messiah in verse 25. Is not the last person mentioned in verse 26 the prince that shall come, thus the Messiah in your case? And do you not have the last person mentioned in verse 26 being who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Does this then mean you need to take your own advice in regards to what you indicated a whole lot of modernist "scholars" need to learn? After all, what I'm arguing here is not who or who not the prince that shall come is meaning, I'm arguing that this last person mentioned in verse 26 has to be who the first pronoun in verse 27 is meaning if one is reading verse 26 and 27 as is.

I take my own advice by following the grammatical referent chain all the way from "He" to "the prince" to "Messiah the Prince".

Modernist "scholars" stop at "He", or at "the prince", in an attempt to sustain their antichrist fallacy.

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.

If read like that, it is obvious to me that "He" in verse 27 is Messiah.

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.

If read like that, it is obvious to me that "He" in verse 27 is "the prince" in verse 26, who in turn is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25.

The reason why you might take issue with reading it like this, is obvious. Because this undeniably proves, assuming this is a valid way to read that, that you are 100% incorrect that the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning the Messiah in verse 25, thus is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27. In spite of that, your reasoning is, the prince that shall come is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27 since that pronoun is meaning the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26, and that the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26 is meaning this same prince that shall come.

I don't take issue with reading it like that.

Yet, if what I proposed above is a valid way to read verse 26 and 27, it debunks your reasoning, not supports it. And why would this be such a bad thing since this is basically killing 2 birds with one stone? Meaning it also debunks, not supports, any interpretation that takes a gap to be meaning between the 69th and 70th week, therefore, making the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac rather than Christ according to that reasoning. Clearly, a future ac is found in the text in verses 26 and 27, but not between the 69th and 70th week, but after the middle of the 70th week.

It debunks any possibility of a fantasized futurized "ac" in the passage:
1. There is no word in OT Hebrew for "ac".
2. There is a plethora of references to Christ, and a complete absence of references to "ac", by recognized Bible expositors of the historical orthodox true Christian Church prior to the 19th century.