CTK
Active Member
Well, I do thank you for your response... and I am more than happy that my interpretations are in line with yours. Just about 99.99% of today's interpreters have accepted the Jesuit's futurist interpretation that "he" in 9:27a is "he" some mythical surpernatural boogeyman who will come some 2000 years in the future to arrange some kind of an agreement with Israel only to reng on it within 3.5 years and this will bring in the Great tribulation. All complete nonsense that was intentionally created by the papacy in the 16th century for the purpose of removing the label and identify of the papacy as the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8. And, unfortunately, given their wealth and breath of power, they have taught this false interpretation to the children and their children .... and so on for so many generations.There is only one individual in Daniel 9 identified as a prince.
He is Messiah the Prince.
The grammatical antecdent/referent of "the prince" in Daniel 9:26 is "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25.
The people of Messiah the Prince were the Roman armies (Luke 21:20, Matthew 24:15) who were His servants of judgment, destruction, and desolation upon apostate Israel.
Further, the grammatical antecedent/referent of the "he's" in Daniel 9:27 is "the prince" in Daniel 9:26, i.e. Messiah the Prince".
It was Messiah the Prince who confirmed the Covenant with many. Daniel 9:27, Matthew 26:28
It was Messiah the Prince who caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, at Calvary.
The passage is all about Messiah the Prince.
But regarding the "prince" (small p) in verse 26, I do not believe this is referring to the Lord. First, verses 26 and 27 are the two destructive verses. Within these verses, we find the destruction of the Messiah, His city and the sanctuary. The Temple and everything within Israel will be destroyed in 70 AD. It will be destroyed by the "people" of the prince who is to come, not the people of the Prince (Messiah). The Messiah was already crucified and had returned to His Father in heaven. But 40 years later, Titus would lead the Roman army to destroy everything. But they would represent the "people" who would destroy it, not the prince.
These people who were within the pagan Roman empire would be the same people who would become "people" of papal Rome after pagan Rome, the 4th beast kingdom was slain and its body destroyed (7:11). This "prince" (small p) would come much later than the destruction in 70 AD.
There are only two verses within 9:24-27 that mention the word "Messiah." One is in the "restorative" verse which discloses the arrival of the Messiah the Prince (25), and the second is in verse 26, where Daniel only uses the term "Messiah." And this is indeed purposeful. From verse 25 to 26 we move from the "restorative" to the "destructive" verse. In 25, God sees Jesus as Messiah the Prince, but in 26, He sees or identifies Jesus only as the "Messiah." This is because the cross took place between these two verses. When, Jesus took on the sin of the world, God would identify Him only as the Messiah. Before He took on the sin of the world, He referred to Him as Messiah the Prince.
This can also be seen when Daniel records the proper name of Jerusalem in verse 25 (restorative verse), but in verse 26, He will not use the proper name but refer to it as the "city and the sanctuary." After the cross, the Messiah fulfilled His mission as the High Priest, the Temple, the perfect Sacrifice., thus, the physical structures and the city , the walls and streets,etc., no longer held their holiyness or would ever house the presence of God ever again. Now, God would allow their destruction in 40 years since they were simply structures...
So, please consider this "prince" as a small (p) who would come after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD --- after the Messiah was crucified. The pagan people of Imperial Rome were not the "people of the Messiah who is to come."
Please let me know your thoughts,,