The People of the Prince, the Coming One (2 of 4)

.

The Personal, Singular, Masculine, Subject Pronoun “He” in Verse 27

Who is this person referred to by this personal, masculine, subject pronoun “he” in verse 27? John Walvoord (a dispensationalist) believes that understanding who this person is to be “the key to the interpretation of the passage.”[1] For him (and others who believe as he does), it is the Achilles’ heel[2] to prove a weakness in the theory that the personal pronoun “he” refers to the Messiah (or Christ). On the contrary, by their overly simplistic and incorrect analysis of the grammar, as we shall soon just see, this Achilles’ heel actually turns against them in favor of our position; exposing them for their own weakness, not ours.

One can only imagine where such a doctrine comes from that tries to take the main focus and attention of what this glorious prophecy is all about concerning the work of Christ, or the Messiah, and redirect (or I should say, “misdirect”) our attention upon some other individual, and no less an Antichrist of one’s own making. This persuasion comes not from above, brethren. It is the sleight-of-hand and working of Satan.

Talk about there being many "false prophets" and “antichrists,” this teaching personifies this idea. False Christ’s and false prophets were to be everywhere in the apostles’ days, and this is no less true in the twisting and the manipulation of these verses in our day. This very “spirit” of “antichrist” has infiltrated and permeated the very teachings and writings of God. Arthur Pink has said, “Almost all doctrinal error is, really, Truth perverted. Truth wrongly divided, Truth disproportionately held and taught.”[3] No doubt this statement of his could not be more true in this case that is now being presented before us.

As for me, I am not that overly concerned about who the pronoun “he” refers to in Dan. 9:27, because as far as I am concerned, “the prince” in verse 26 (and according to the context) is also “the prince” in verse 25, i.e., Jesus the Messiah. My real concern in all of this is greatly due to the overwhelming cloud of false witnesses who are attempting to chide and belittle those of us who are giving a place to the Savior that they just will not give to Him, which, in this case, is being both Prince and Savior; both Judge and Suffering Servant; both King of kings and High Priest. Both of these aspects of the Messiah’s ministry are seen in this 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. And they have both been gravely overlooked, and belittled.

That “Messiah the Prince” is the subject throughout this prophecy in Dan. 9:24–27, there can be no denying. And once we understand this, like I said before, trying to understand who this mystery person “he” is in verse 27 becomes a moot point. Because whether the subject pronoun “he” is to be understood of the “prince” in the phrase “the people of the prince,” or with the more distant antecedent noun “Messiah” (or “Anointed One”) who is cut–off, doesn’t really matter; because both expressions refer to the Messiah (or Christ). And even if one were to try and make a case that the “the prince” in verse 26 is an Antichrist, the English third person, masculine, singular, subject pronoun “he” in verse 27, who confirms a covenant with many for one week, is directly linked to the more antecedent masculine, singular, subject noun “Messiah” in verse 26, and not to the “prince” mentioned in this same verse at all, because “the prince” is the object noun in that sentence.

Consider this fact that “of the Prince” in verse 26 is a prepositional phrase and “Prince” is the object of the people. And according to English grammar, “the object is part of the activity, but does not do the activity”;[4] it is “the people” as the subject in this sentence who are actually doing the activity of destroying for the Ruler (with “of” denoting a preposition of possession), which no one who understands grammar denies.

Additionally, a prepositional phrase “will never contain the subject of a sentence.”[5] And since “the people” as the subject do not agree in person, number, or gender with the subject pronoun “he” in verse 27, then what is called “a more distant antecedent” subject noun is to be sought after. And as the case may be, that a more distant antecedent subject noun is the “Messiah” who is cut-off in verse 26, and not the “Prince” at all. All this is basic English grammar 101.

In fact, dispensationalist Robert Culver, whom I refer to a little bit later in this discussion, is noted as saying, “If the pronoun “he” were present in the Hebrew, a case might possibly be made for the introduction of an entirely new personality into the story at this point.”[6] What? I am flabbergasted! Why do you think all the translators translated it in our English translations with our English pronoun “he”? It is because they all unanimously understood that this third person, sing., masc., Hebrew verb for “confirm,” as with all verbs, must have a subject from which this action operates. And since it is in the masculine, they have determined to use a pronoun as the “subject” or noun of the sentence here that only makes sense in English: it is the third person,[7] sing., masc., pers., subject pronoun “he.”

And so who could possibly be this "new personality" in the previous verse who is linked to “he” that confirms a covenant” in verse 27? A subject noun of course that agrees with this subject pronoun, whoever that person may be! It can’t be “the Ruler,” who is the object of the sentence, for that would require an “object” pronoun such as “him.” And for the translators to have translated it as, “him shall confirm a covenant,” not only does this not denote a subject for the verb “confirm” (because it’s an “object” pronoun), but it also just doesn’t make for good English. And neither can it be “the people” who are the subject in that sentence, for then that would require the personal, subject, pronoun “they.” But, of course, “they” is plural and neither masculine, so that wouldn’t work either. And so as it turns out, it just so happens that “the Messiah” is the nearest antecedent subject noun that agrees with this subject pronoun “he.”

As said before, all of our current English translations have given this third person, singular, masculine, Hebrew verb “confirm” a translation with the English, personal, subject pronoun “he.” And both English and Hebrew grammar rules mandate that that both this “subject” pronoun and “subject” verb agree with their respective “subject” noun in a sentence. Not just any noun, but a “subject” noun. Object pronouns agree with object nouns, subject pronouns agree with subject nouns. It can’t get anymore clearer than this!

And so this is where a grave error has occurred when it is stated by not a few that the nearest noun that agrees in gender and number is to be understood as the antecedent noun of either the Hebrew verb “confirm” or of the English subject pronoun “he.” “Confirm” is not an object verb that belongs to an object noun, but a subject verb that belongs to a subject noun, and thus the subject pronoun “he” also becomes the subject noun in this particular sentence, with this subject pronoun also having as its antecedent an individual in the context that agrees in case, person, number and gender[8] in order to identify who this individual is. Again, not a noun in the objective case, but a noun in the subjective case. “Prince,” “people,” and “Messiah” are all nouns, but only “people” and “Messiah” are in the subjective case and subject nouns. Therefore, only “Messiah” is the proper “fit” as “he” who confirms a covenant with many.

Many who have a working knowledge of English grammar have come to realize this with regards to these verses here. And it is only those who do not have a proper understanding of how English grammar works who have tried to make the personal pronoun “he” refer to just any “noun” in the previous sentence. As all this now begins to make more sense, you would think this would settle the issue once and for all, but, unfortunately, it hasn’t. So let’s embark on all of this a little further in this study.

Now none of this was to say that “the prince” and “the Messiah” in verse 26 are not one and the selfsame individual (because they are as far as I am concerned), but only that the grammar in and of itself confirms the fact that “he” who confirms the covenant with many for one week in verse 27, is referring to none other than the subject noun “Messiah” (or “anointed one”) in the former part of verse 26, and not to the object noun “prince” in the latter part of the verse. And rightly so, because the work of “he that confirms a covenant” is the work of Messiah as High Priest who was “cut-off,” and not the work of Messiah as Ruler or Prince. To be construed otherwise, would be out of character in attempting to link Christ’s atoning work with His Kingly judgmental work. Jesus is anointed for both offices, but each have their own separate and distinct functions. Additionally, for Christ as the “Prince” in verse 26 to be the “object” of the sentence here makes all the more sense now when we understand, as stated earlier, that “the object is part of the activity” in bringing desolations upon ungodly nations, “but does not do the activity” himself. By the very nature of the case, Messiah as Prince had to be noted here as the “object” of “the people” who are the subject here, because He isn’t the one who is actually doing the “destroying.” The people do that, as all subject nouns in a sentence are suppose to do. Much more will be cited to substantiate all of this later, but first of all, I would like to begin with the comments of some others, such as that of Ralph Woodrow, who states nothing new other than to substantiate what has already been stated,

We know that the pronoun “he” is not to be connected with the word “prince” in the expression “the people of the prince”, for the word prince is here the object of the modifying clause “of the prince.” A pronoun cannot properly have as its antecedent the object of a modifying clause. This point should be carefully noted. [9]

As the Suffering Servant and High Priest for His people, in context, Christ (or the Messiah) as the subject of "he" is the only one who could confirm a covenant with many and cause both sacrifices and oblations to cease. It wasn’t in His right to do this as “King,” but only as a High Priest. Even as the Lord through the prophet Isaiah has said, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people” (Isa 42:6). And this is likely all the more reason why “he” that was to confirm a covenant, is not immediately connected with He who was to come as the Prince and Judge of Israel. Christ’s ministry as the Judge, King or Prince here was parenthetical to His more predominant and important work here as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and for which this prophecy is mainly all about.

Dispensationalist Thomas Ice mistakenly begs to differ with regards to who this personal pronoun “he” refers to,

Right off the bat, the first question that arises in verse 27 is to whom does the pronoun “he” refer to? I believe that “he” must refer to “the prince who is to come” in verse 26. However, opponents of literal interpretation disagree.[10] 

First of all, being an “opponent” of Ice's “literal interpretation” of Scripture has nothing to do with the case at hand. Being “literal” with the present texts in Daniel is what this book is all about, using both context and the rules of grammar to prove my point. It is Ice who has abandoned the “literal” for his fanciful and very highly speculative theories, throwing context and grammar completely out the window and making up his own rules along the way. Regardless, Preterist, Dr. Kenneth Gentry (an opponent of Ice's overly literal hermenuetic), writes:

The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26. (Daniel's Seventy Weeks, p. 35). 

Fellow preterist, Gary DeMar, likewise insists:

It is Jesus who “will make a firm covenant with the many,” not the antichrist.[11] 

And so Ice concludes,

Yet, such an errant interpretation [of Gentry and DeMar] violates the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew text. In Hebrew grammar, as with most languages, a pronoun would refer to the nearest antecedent, unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise. In this instance, the nearest antecedent in agreement with “he” is “the prince who is to come” in verse 26. This is recognized by a majority of scholars, including a number of amillennialists such as Kiel and Leupold. Only an a priori theological bias could lead a trained interpreter of Scripture to any other conclusion. 

Robert Culver, in tandem with Ice, goes on to also explain his so-called correct meaning of the text as follows:

The ordinary rules of grammar establish that the leading actor of this verse is the Antichrist, the great evil man of the end time. . . . If the pronoun “he” were present in the Hebrew, a case might possibly be made for the introduction of an entirely new personality into the story at this point. However, there is no pronoun; only the third masculine singular form of the verb indicates that an antecedent is to be sought, and that of necessity in the preceding context.[12] Usually, the last preceding noun that agrees in gender and number and agrees with the sense is the antecedent. This is unquestionably . . . “the coming prince” of verse 26. He is a “coming” prince, that is, one whom the reader would already know as a prince to come, because he is the same as the ‘little horn’ on the fourth beast of chapter seven.[13]

But Culver does not adequately state his case. Oswald T. Allis disagrees with Culver’s reckless analysis, and reveals where his understanding of grammar is gravely lacking.

Allis writes,

It is argued that “prince” is the subject of the verb “confirm” because it is nearer to it than is the word “anointed (one).” But this argument is more than offset by the fact that the subject of the verb “destroy” is not “prince” but “people” (“and the people of the prince, the coming one, shall destroy”). If the nearest subject must be regarded as the subject of the verb “confirm,” it should be “people” not “prince.” [14]

As Allis points out, if one were to take Ice and Culver's reasoning on linking the Hebrew word for the verb “confirm” with the “prince” and not the “Messiah,” then by the same reasoning the Hebrew verb for “destroy” should also be linked with the closest antecedent “the prince” and not “the people.” But it can’t! Because according to grammar, it is “the people” who do the actual destroying, not “the prince.” And as you will soon see in just a little bit, even Ice understood that much. Conveniently now following the proper rules of grammar, Ice too understood that the verb “destroy” should be linked not to the closest antecedent which is “the prince,” but to the more distant antecedent subject noun of “the people.”

And furthermore, as Allis pointed out above, if the nearest subject in the Hebrew is “the people” (which he affirms that it is), then the verb “confirm” would have to refer to “the people” doing the confirming and not “the prince” at all, because “the prince” is not the subject of that sentence, “the people” are.

The subject of the masculine verb “confirm” is not “the prince,” because “the prince” is not the subject, but the object; whereas “the people” are the subject. And since the plural “the people” cannot be the antecedent subject noun, then a more distant antecedent subject noun is to be sought after. And the English grammatical construction in all of the accepted English translations affirm this construction of the Hebrew text, appointing a singular, masculine, personal, subject pronoun “he” that is to agree with its nearest antecedent subject noun in the sentence, and not just the nearest noun, such as “the prince.” Additionally, the “Anointed One” (or Messiah) is also the closest matching subject noun of the singular, masculine Hebrew subject verb “confirm.”

And also notice how Robert Culver forgot to recall the fact that this Hebrew verb is in the “third” person. He skips right by that and says that the verb must only match in “gender and number,” which is the same mistake that all of these guys are guilty of. In fact, all of these individuals even forget to note the case of this Hebrew verb of whether or not it is in the subjective mood, objective mood or, whatever.

As you recall, since this Hebrew verb “confirm” is a subject verb, and in the “third masculine singular form,” as Culver states, then it stands to reason that the only English pronoun that fits with it is the third person, masculine, singular, subject pronoun “he.” And the subject noun that can only properly identify with this subject pronoun "he" and the subject Hebrew verb "confirm," is the Messiah (or Anointed One), and not the object noun of “the Prince.” And as stated earlier, if “the Prince” were the antecedent, then this would require an object pronoun “him” to make it fit with “the Prince,” rather than using the subject pronoun “he.” Again, object pronouns go with object nouns, and subject pronouns go with subject pronouns. End of story!

The analysis of the Hebrew text above by Oswald T. Allis in showing that the “subject” of the verb “confirm” is not to be construed as of “the prince” affirms the grammatical construction of the English texts which is assuredly “as with most languages,” and not “as with most languages” as Thomas Ice had earlier misled us to believe. Ice had also stated according to his analysis and conclusions of the text that it “is recognized by a majority of scholars, including a number of amillennialists such as Kiel and Leupold.”[15] Is this statement of his true? Well, yes and no with some further explaining to do.

I have the commentaries on Daniel from both Keil and Leupold, and while both might agree with Ice that “he” refers to Antichrist, only Keil, not Leupold, gives any statements based upon any grammatical considerations whatsoever. We will discuss these “considerations” of Keil’s shortly. But for Thomas Ice to use these two gentlemen under the false premise that they both support the reasons for how he came to his own conclusions based upon Hebrew grammar is a little bit misleading. Keil never says, as Ice maintains, that “a pronoun would refer to the nearest antecedent,” as meaning just any antecedent. He too realized that the verb “he will confirm” had to have as its antecedent a “subject” noun, and so Keil conveniently creates one as we will soon just see, knocking the prince out of his rightful place as the “object” of the sentence and creatively manipulating the text to make him the "subject."

Dispensationalists, on the other hand, unlike Keil, say it can just refer to any closest masculine, singular noun, regardless of whether it is the subject in the sentence, or not. And so this is the difference that is to be noted between how Keil came to his conclusions and how Ice and all dispensationalists come to theirs. They both come to the same conclusions, but for two entirely different reasons.

And furthermore, if what Ice means by “a majority of scholars” is to be understood by such statements as the likes of those of John MacArthur (as I note a little later), then this can hardly be scholarly. Don’t get me wrong, there is much to admire in John MacArthur as a thinker and a theologian, but such “scholars” as these have erred when trying to match subjects with verbs; and subject pronouns with their respective subject nouns.

As noted earlier, the Hebrew verb "confirm" must agree with a subject noun and not just “the last preceding noun that agrees in gender and number,” as Culver, has correctly stated in opposition to Ice though. Such individuals as these men also forget to note that the case and person is to be considered in all of this, which is extremely important in linking pronouns with their antecedent nouns. And so the English translations using the personal subject pronoun “he” substantiate this fact. Again, just because “prince” is a noun (and an object can be a noun), this doesn’t make it the noun that is the antecedent to this Hebrew verb “confirm.” As Allis contended above, the antecedent noun in the Hebrew can only be a subject noun in the subjective case. And the person for such a subject can only be the pronoun “he” that accommodates this case, not “him” or “they”; it also being in the subjective case. And the person for such a subject can only be understood by the personal pronoun “he” that accommodates this case, not “him” or “they.”

I am very glad that Ice inserted the remarks of Robert Culver that it is “usually, the last preceding noun,” along with his own words, “unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise.” This indicates that at least these men both understood that it is possible for the verb to have a more distant antecedent noun than the one immediately before it. This affirmation, in and of itself, is very telling indeed. And as English grammar, Allis, Edward Young (as we will soon see below), and as “most languages” truly and accurately reveal, this is most assuredly to be the exact nature of the case. It is not what Ice or what other self-acclaimed “scholars” would have us believe.

John MacArthur, in tandem with Ice, makes mention of this pronoun as having to agree with its closest antecedent, and so also mistakenly with Ice says that “he” refers to “the prince” in the previous verse. He likewise writes:

...who’s “he”? The prince that shall come, the Antichrist, that’s the proper antecedent for “He.” [16]

Oh really? As you will have noticed, I said MacArthur had “mistakenly” made the same error along with Thomas Ice, because as has been already noted, “the prince” is not the subject of this verse, “the people” are. And as has been already noted, the “prince” is the object in that verse. Any good commentary or book that has studied this subject of Daniel’s Seventieth Week as being fulfilled in the person and work of Christ, has noted these rules of correct English (and even Hebrew) grammar to buttress the fact that it is the Messiah that we are talking about here who confirms or gives strength to this covenant with many, not “the Prince.” And definitely not some future antichrist! What rightfully belongs to Christ, has ironically and mistakenly been pushed off onto us as some Antichrist. If this is not the case, then all the English translations are grammatically misleading us and we would have no sense of what the personal pronoun “he” is really referring to. Why insert one, if one isn’t to be understood in the translation of the Hebrew text? On the contrary, they all thought it grammatically proper to translate this Hebrew verb this way because this is what the text is saying as far as they are concerned. There is no other way to translate it. This Hebrew third person, masculine, singular subject verb is to have a subject noun that does the confirming and the third person, masculine, singular, subject pronoun “he” is the only thing that fits this, serving as both the subject in its own sentence and as a subject pronoun that refers to the subject noun of the Messiah!

Now the Septuagint translation (along with some more recent commentators) omits the personal pronoun “he,” and just translates it, “and one week shall establish the covenant with many.” But without the personal pronoun “he,” how are we to know “who” or “what” establishes the covenant?

As Albert Barnes notes in his commentary,

It seems to me that it is an unnatural construction to make the word “week” the nominative to the verb, and that the more obvious interpretation is to refer it to some person to whom the whole subject relates. It is not usual to represent time as an agent in accomplishing a work. In poetic and metaphorical language, indeed, we personate time as cutting down men, as a destroyer, &e., but this usage would not justify the expression that "time would confirm a covenant with many." That is, evidently, the work of a conscious, intelligent agent. [17]

The Hebrew “third, masculine, singular” form of the verb “confirm” lets us know that it is an individual who in fact confirms the covenant, and not the “one week” itself which confirms it. Keil and Delitzsch remark on the untenable nature of this idea also in their commentary, and so I would defer all of my readers to them on their lengthy discussion of all this.

Now dispensationalist, John F. Walvoord, makes his mark with regards to all of this,

Who makes the covenant for one week?…In verse 27 it is revealed: “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.” It is normal exegesis for a pronoun to claim as its antecedent the nearest noun with which it could be identified. The nearest antecedent in this case is the “prince that shall come.” This could not be Titus [the Prince of the Roman people who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.] for he did not make such a covenant… [18]

As noted earlier, John Walvoord had stated that, “The determination of the antecedent of he in verse 27 is “the key to the interpretation of the passage.”[19] He goes on to say,

If the normal rule be followed that the antecedent is the nearest preceding possibility, it would go back to the prince that shall come of verse 26. This is the normal premillennial interpretation which postulates that the reference is to a future prince who may be identified with the Antichrist who will appear at the end of the inter-advent age [during a seven-year tribulation] just before the second coming of Christ….Under these circumstances, the normal antecedent of he is the prince that shall come, who is not to be identified with Titus, but rather with a future enemy of the people of Israel. [20]

First of all, this is not the “normal premillennial interpretation.” George Eldon Ladd, a historic premillennialist (and not a dispensationalist), sure didn’t think so. He saw the Seventy Weeks of Daniel as all already fulfilled in the person and work of Christ on the cross. And secondly, the “normal antecedent of he,” as we have already assessed, is not “the prince that shall come.” It just isn’t that simple! Clearly, Walvoord is taking a very uninformed and simplistic approach to the rules of grammar here. He “simply” states, “a pronoun is to have as its antecedent a previous noun.” He is just parroting what everyone else in his camp is saying; or, maybe it is they who are all “parroting” him, I don‘t know. But they all seem to be blindly following the same lead. Deception has this way upon people. But as already noted above, one cannot just arbitrarily match this subject pronoun “he” with just any previous noun. [21]

With English personal pronouns there are three forms: object, possessive, and subject. A website online notes here on pronouns:

Generally (but not always) pronouns stand for (pro + noun) or refer to a noun, an individual or individuals or thing or things (the pronoun’s antecedent) whose identity is made clear earlier in the text. For instance, we are bewildered by writers who claim something like:

• They say that eating beef is bad for you. 

• They is a pronoun referring to someone, but who are they? Cows? Whom do they represent? Sloppy use of pronouns is unfair. 

Not all pronouns will refer to an antecedent, however.

• Everyone here earns over a thousand dollars a day. 

• The word 'everyone' has no antecedent.[22]

As was said, in English there are three forms of personal pronouns: object, possessive, and subject pronouns. In the case before us here in Daniel, like the first example on pronouns listed above, we have the pronoun “he” which, in and by itself, is unidentifiable. But we know that according to English grammar that this is a third person, masculine, singular, personal, “subject” pronoun. Thus we have the person, gender, number, and case. This is the only identifier of who this pronoun can undeniably be referring to. As said before, the noun “prince” in all the English translations here is the object of the sentence, yet the pronoun “he” is a subject pronoun, and so “a subject pronoun” cannot have as its antecedent “the object,” or “the prince” of the sentence. This would require an object pronoun. And since the personal pronoun has to agree in case, number, person, and gender with its antecedent, it cannot agree with the subject “the people” either (which is no less a subject noun), for that would require the subject plural pronoun “them,” “they,” or “theirs.” Therefore, the only thing left for the personal pronoun “he” to refer to can only be by the very nature of the case, the Messiah.

Walvoord had also stated,

A second view is that he refers to Christ. This is supported by Edward Young and Philip Mauro. Mauro states,

If we take the pronoun “He” as relating to “the Messiah” mentioned in the preceding verse, then we find in the New Testament Scriptures a perfect fulfillment of the passage, and a fulfillment, moreover, which is set forth in the most conspicuous way. That pronoun must, in our opinion, be taken as referring to Christ, because (a) the prophecy is all about Christ, and this is the climax of it; (b) Titus did not make any covenant with the Jews; (c) there is not a word in Scripture about any future “prince” making a covenant with them. [23]

Actually, dispensationalists have to create a future covenant made with the Jews by a future Antichrist during a seven–year tribulation, based strictly upon these verses here in Daniel alone. And many of them even affirm no less that the covenant God promised in the future through the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 31:31, and reiterated in Hebrews chapter 8, is not our new covenant at all that God through Christ has made with His Church, but another new covenant that God is to make with the Jews in the future during the millennium. I kid you not! Again, what rightfully belongs to us, the Church, doesn’t, but belongs only to natural Israel in the future apart from the Church. Really, can anyone take these guys seriously? There is to be new covenants with Israel, new temples, newly reinstated animal sacrifices, with newly reinstated literal circumcision, along with the return of the Sabbath and all the festivals, and even the reinstating of the Levitical priesthood―and all according to a literal application and understanding of Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, etc., in chapters 40–48. This is all a type and shadow of God's temple, the Church, who has rivers of living water flowing out of her, and not out of another future rebuilt literal earthly temple! What’s next for these men to say? There are no limits to where these false prophets and false teachers will take us. Was I so wrong earlier in calling them “similar Judaizers”? You tell me! And many of the men who teach these things are so–called modern day Messianic Jews who have supposedly converted to Christ and who have brought their Judaistic teachings and beliefs into the Church; with Chuck Messler and Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum being just a couple of them, to name a few.

With all of these thoughts behind us, let us now see what the German Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch have to say in accordance with Thomas Ice’s assertions of what he said they seemingly stated opposition to those of their day who did regard the Messiah in the first part of verse 26 as the antecedent subject noun to “he” who confirms a covenant with many in verse 27:

The reasons which Hengstenberg adduces in support of his view that the Messias is the subject, are destitute of validity. The assertion that the Messias is the chief person [or the subject] spoken of in the whole of this passage, rests on the supposition, already proved to be untenable, that the prince who was to come (ver. 26) was the instrument of the Anointed,[24] and on the passages in Isaiah 53:11 and Isaiah 42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid [Prince] is the subject to הגבּיר [he will confirm], since the prince who was to come is named last [or is nearest to this verb “confirm”] and is also the subject in the suffix of קצּו (his end [25]), the last clause of ver. 26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also “the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (ver. 26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הבּא נגיד;” [the coming prince]—further, “he who here is represented as ‘causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease’ is obviously identical with him who changes (Daniel 7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of הגבּיר [he will confirm] to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage,” and it gives also a congruous [or appropriate] sense, although by the Nagid [Prince] Titus cannot naturally be understood. [26]

Much has been stated here by Keil, and I suggest that one read and reread what he is stating in order to accurately ascertain what it is he is really talking about, as I have belabored to do, and with what I believe is to be with much success. So let‘s get started. Words in brackets have been added in Keil's previous comments for clarity of meaning and in the understanding of certain Hebrew words, with italics and bold being added for emphasis on the pertinent and salient points that have to do with this study at hand. I would also suggest reading my embedded endnotes for some further elaboration on some of the details that Keil talks about to gain even further insight.

Edward Young, a non-dispensationalist, and one who is in the same league with Keil as far as having a working knowledge of the Hebrew language is concerned, in his commentary on Daniel, disagrees with the comments of the likes of those such as of Keil,

To construe “prince” as subject, does not appear to be the most natural reading, for the word [prince] occupies only a subordinate position even in verse 26, where it is not even the subject of the sentence. The city and sanctuary are to be destroyed, not by a prince, but by the people of that prince. The people are in a more prominent position than is the prince. Furthermore, the phrase, ‘and its end’ [“his end,” as erroneously deduced by Keil] in verse 26 need not refer to the prince but more likely to the end of the destruction as such.[27] The phrase of the prince in vs. 26 is in such a subordinate position that it is extremely unlikely that we are to regard it as antecedent of “he will confirm” (p. 208).

I would like to also further state that it is more than just “extremely unlikely,” it is utterly impossible. Young is being too kind for words here. For even Young notes that “the prince” in verse 26, “is not even the subject of the sentence.” And as one can very well see, you cannot just arbitrarily link the “he will confirm” with just any previous antecedent noun, unless, of course, you believe like Keil, that this “prince” in verse 26 is the subject. And Keil manages to finagle all of this with such a sleight-of-hand by construing the English translation “its end” in the same verse as “his end” ("the end," in some translations) in verse 26 here as “his end,” then this conveniently makes “the prince” here an antecedent “subject” noun as far as he is concerned. And so if the Hebrew suffix “kate” here is “his end,” then the phrase “he will confirm,” which follows, naturally now also refers to this newly created subject, or “prince,” and not to the Messiah at all.

But Keil misses a crucial point to consider here in all of this. “The prince” and “the people” cannot both be the “subject” of the sentence here. As noted earlier, “Prince” is the object of preposition "of the people," and “the people” are the ones, or the subject, that “destroy.” Even Keil admits that grammatically the people are the actual subjects doing the destroying here, and not the prince at all. He notes: “In consequence of the cutting off of the משיח [the Anointed] destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes.”[28] So Keil can’t have it both ways here. Either “the people” are the subject, or “the prince” is the subject, but not both of them! He was tripping over his own words here and didn’t even realize it. Again, this is what deception does to an individual.

Furthermore, notice also above that Keil says that “prince” is “named last…and is also the subject in the suffix of קצּו (his end).” He doesn’t call it, as Ice leads us to believe, “the nearest antecedent in agreement with ‘he’ is ‘the prince who is to come’ in verse 26” (Ibid). Keil just states that “prince” was nearest in a succession of nouns that seemed to correspond with this Hebrew verb “confirm.” Keil gives no qualified explanation for this statement of his other than that! In other words, he cites no rules of grammar. But clearly he did seem to realize that the prince must be construed as a subject noun, so by a sleight–of–hand he conveniently creates a subject pronoun, “his end,” to force the object noun “prince” out of its “subordinate position” to “the people,” as Young had noted earlier as wrong, making him now the subject―which he can’t be when it is “the people” who are the subject and “the prince” who is their object. But Keil had an ulterior motive for doing this: an “a priori theological bias,” as Thomas Ice liked to put it of those of us who would differ with him, Keil, and others of their persuasion; turning his own statement against himself and them, not against us! This “shoe” of an "a priori theological bias" that Ice has said is to fit on others―belongs unequivocally to them! It is they who are to wear it, not us! It is upon them that this very shoe finds its absolute and perfect match!

Clearly, Keil’s word isn’t the last and final word from heaven on all of this. This “scholar” isn’t so scholarly as he would lead us all to believe. Even “scholars” (and in Hebrew at that), are subject to error. Clearly, there was more to be determined in all of this here than evidently met his eye. And he became so narrowly focused on this “prince” and his own theological biases that it forced him into a corner to mistakenly determine "the prince" as a subject in this sentence and overlook the fact that it is “the people” who are actually the subject, and “the prince” the object! Again, he can’t have it both ways here! Therefore, this is all the more reason that the suffix “his end” is correctly translated “its end” or “the end” (as it is has been overwhelming translated as such in the majority of translations). If no translated this way, then it would force “the prince” to become the subject here, which he can’t! Edward Young recognized this dilemma, and even stated above as it being the very reason why Keil’s assertions (and those who are in favor of his assertions), cannot be consistently upheld or maintained. As we can very well see, all of the major translations seem to concur with this hypothesis.

The Hebrew “qets” (pronounced, “kates”) occurs over 60 times in the OT and basically means “the end” of any person, place or thing. It refers either to, first of all: “the end” of a thing or event, such as “the end” of a period of time in Dan. 11:27, 35, 40; 12:12 and 13b. Secondly: to “the end” of the time of a person’s life in Dan. 11:45 (and possibly also used this way in 12:13a concerning Daniel). Thirdly: to “the end” of a place, such as armies coming from “the farthest ends” of the borders against Babylon (Jer. 50:26); or of the Medes coming from “the end” of the horizon (or heavens) against Babylon (Isa. 13:5ff, NASB); or even of king Sennacherib reaching “the furthest ends” of Israel’s forests (2Kin. 19:23d). And fourthly: it is even used with regards to “the end” coming upon the people of Israel in Amos 8:2, and even the four corners of the land of Israel in Ezk. 7:2.

In our present study here, in Daniel 9:26, the suffix “qets” is also in the masculine singular form. Now “prince” is in the masculine singular, “the city” is in the feminine singular, and interestingly the “sanctuary” is also in the masculine singular. Keil notes how one commentator actually thought that the suffix referred more specifically to “the sanctuary” and not necessarily to “the city,” and one can very well see why. Of course, Keil thought this to be “arbitrary” of him to affirm this. And so Keil struggled with this seemingly arbitrary separation of the city from the sanctuary. But could it just be possible that as a direct result of Christ causing the bloody and non-bloody sacrifices to cease that this would also amount to the desolation of the city and temple; but, more specifically, to the cult worship of the temple itself proper? In other words, not only would the Messiah as High Priest cause the Jewish sacrifices to cease in the sacrifice of His own body, but the Messiah as Prince (or Ruler) would also bring an “end” (or “qets”) to the very temple itself as denoted by the masculine form! After all, the city has never really seen its end, has it!? But for almost 2,000 years now the temple surely has seen its end. And let us not forget what Edward Young said, “To construe ‘prince’ as subject, does not appear to be the most natural reading, for the word [prince] occupies only a subordinate position even in verse 26, where it is not even the subject of the sentence.” And as was said before, if “its end” is “his end” (i.e., the prince’s end), then it becomes a personal, subject pronoun and forces “prince” to become the subject of the sentence as Keil has done, when he’s not the subject at all! The “people” are. By translating the Hebrew suffix qets as “its end,” it thus becomes in English a possessive pronoun, and we thus avoid making anything else in the previous verse the subject other than “the people” that are to be intended there as such. And so as Young also noted, “the phrase, ‘and its end’ need not refer to the prince but more likely to the end of the destruction as such.” In other words, it is referring to the time when “the people” would conclude their devastation of the city, and more particularly, of the temple.

Another idea to think about here is that most online lexical study tool aids recognize the part of speech of “qets” as a “masculine noun,”[29] and thus the sentence could read: “The end shall be with a flood,” as in the NIV, NLT, KJV, ASV, BBE, DRB, and DBT translations. So if understood this way, neither the prince, the people, the city, nor the sanctuary are necessarily its antecedent. It stands as a subject masculine noun all on its own as just some kind of end that will come as a flood.

Now “every noun in Hebrew has a gender, either masculine or feminine; for example, ספר [pronounced "sefer"] (book) is masculine, while דלת [pronounced "delet"] (door) is feminine. There is no strict system of former gender.”[30] Normally, “gender is a property that indicates the sex of a referent (masculine or feminine). In Hebrew, however, the correlation between the gender of a noun and its referent is generally accidental. For example, the word Torah in Hebrew is feminine, but that does not imply anything about the nature of the Torah itself. And unlike Greek, there is no ‘neuter’ gender in Hebrew.”[31]

So like the Hebrew nouns for “Torah,” “book,” and “door,” the masculine form of “qets” does not really point to any particular sex or gender at all. It can stand alone on its own merits. “The end,” which is determined by God, is, “with the overflowing flood” of the Roman armies in their destruction of the city and sanctuary as noted in the previous verse. This is the only “end” that is being prophesied about here in the immediate context, and not that of a person at all. And since “every noun in Hebrew has a gender” then “qets” as a noun here could very easily stand by itself and not be translated as a pronoun at all in our English translation as Keil has done. I particularly like this idea the most, and prefer it over the other suggestions note above. It creates no conflict of interest either with the prince, the people, or with just the idea of the sanctuary as being the referent; and since its “part of speech” is in the “noun” form, this makes it a better fit. It’s either this idea, or the idea of it being an English possessive pronoun; but it cannot be an English subject pronoun linking it to “the prince,” for then the “prince” would be removed from his more subordinate position to “the people” as a prepositional phrase and as the object of “the people,” thus making him the subject of the sentence rather than “the people.”

After having said all that, this was clearly the “time” or “period” for everything “Jewish” to come to an end! All such distinctions between the Jews and Greeks was over. This Hebrew word “qets” is used again in the very next verse and reiterates that this desolation on the city and sanctuary would be, as noted in most translations, “even until the consummation,” or “even until the end.” The main point or idea here being, in verses 26 and 27, that the “end” that is being referred to is not the prince’s end, but “the end of the time or period” of both Jewish polity and practice as the context clearly indicates to us.

According to Young, even the translation “even until the consummation” as written in the King James Version,

does not appear faithfully to represent the Hebrew....The word end means full end [see ASV above], and the phrase that determined should be regarded as the subject [in this sentence] of [the verb] shall pour. In my opinion the phrase that determined has reference to the full end, so that we might paraphrase as follows, “and until the full end which has been determined shall pour upon the desolate”....The desolate is not Titus [or Jesus, if we understand “Prince” as a referent to him], i.e., one who is made desolate, but rather is impersonal, that which is desolate, i.e., the ruins of the temple and city.[32]

What is to be determined is not the end of either a Roman prince or the One who is actually to come (the Messiah, the Prince), and who is actually behind “the people” who are doing the destroying of the city and sanctuary. It is not “his end,” as was ascertained earlier, but the time of “the end” determined by God for the city and sanctuary to become desolate, and which we now know occurred in 70 AD.

The Hebrew word “shamem” used here for “desolate” (Strong’s # 8076) is an adjective, not a noun. And, according to one online source, it is used only three times in the OT in Jer. 12:11; Dan. 9:17 and Dan. 9:27.[33] And so, in accordance with its usage here in its adjectival form (not as describing a person, but as describing a condition of that which is determined), a handful of translations translate the end of verse 27 to read that which is determined to be poured out upon “the desolate,” and not upon a “desolator” (see KJV, NKJV, ASV, DRB, DBT, WBS, WEB, NCV, LXX). The subject matter is the desolation which is determined by God upon the city and the temple, not upon the desolator.

Following this idea above, the Septuagint (LXX) translates the last portion of verse 27, as such: “and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.” Nothing is said here about “one who shall come” as many translations mistakenly insert here, and nothing is said about any “desolator,” but just the “desolation” that was to come to an end at its appointed time by God. But even if this verse were to be understood of the “one who shall come,” the only one who was to come in this prophecy is the Messiah the Prince, the Coming One. And so when understood this way, it stands to reason that what was determined was to be upon the city and temple, and not upon the Lord himself who was to make them desolate via His desolating armies. And, as it turns out, in this particular case, they were the Roman armies. More will be said on this later.

The “time” of “the end” is the time decreed or determined by God for all of this to have come to an end. The Jewish era or epoch of time under the rule and reign of the law of Moses was to see its last days. It was to be once–and–for–all abolished! The words in this particular portion of this prophecy are not concerned about any prince’s end, but the end of the city and sanctuary as a direct result of the Jews cutting–off the Messiah. It couldn’t have been said any better than in the words of Christ himself, “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Lke. 21:24), or, as in the words of Daniel, “until that determined shall be poured upon the desolate” (Dan. 9:27, KJV). And as the LXX reads: “the end of the time and end shall be put to desolation”). There can be no denying that natural Israel’s “time” for their city and sanctuary was to see its end. Their house (or temple) was to be, in the words of Christ, “left unto you desolate” (Mat. 23:38). It was this end that was "the end" determined by God in view here, not “the people” or an insignificant Roman prince no less. Now that, indeed, would be in the words of Keil: "arbitrary." At least in this case it would be!

So now what about Keil’s comments about the Messiah as being “the chief person” (or “subject”) as having already been proven “untenable” before having said anything about this “suffix” qets? On p. 362, of his commentary on Daniel, he notes how the terminology or “a coming prince” denotes not necessarily a “future prince,” but,

...such a one whose coming is known [similar to Leupold’s comment who will be referred to later], of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:24., of Antichrist; and in Daniel 8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבּא [prince] points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist. [34]

So, according to Keil, what is “known” about this individual is what Daniel supposedly already knew about two other previous individuals told to him in his previous prophecies: a supposed[35] future Antichrist in a revived Roman empire in our day no less in Dan. 7:8 and verse 24, or the coming ungodly prince, Antiochus Epiphanes in 8:9, 23ff. If you recall earlier, Robert Culver (parroting Keil) had alluded to this same idea when he said, “He is a ‘coming’ prince, that is, one whom the reader would already know as a prince to come, because he is the same as the ‘little horn’ on the fourth beast of chapter seven” (Ibid).

Nothing is said here at this venture, either by Culver or by Keil, that is of any “grammatical” importance. Everything at this point is purely speculative and only conjecture. And due to the fact that this “coming” of this prince seems to be “a hostile coming,” as Keil notes, then it of necessity, according to him cannot refer to the Prince of peace. But where in Scripture is God said to be just a Prince or King that brings “peace.” As we will soon find out below, God (and Jesus no less) is not only a King of Peace, but a King of Justice and Righteousness, and who also demonstrates His wrath against all ungodliness. Again, nothing is stated here by Keil (or Culver for that matter) to prove anything based upon the grammar, but only based upon their own a priori theological presuppositions and biases. And it was according to these ideas of Keil’s that he found the idea of this “prince” as referring to the Messiah as being “untenable.” Not based on grammar, mind you, but based upon an “a priori theological bias,” as they so often like to state of all those such as myself.

Quite frankly, it is Keil’s statements that I find to be “untenable,” as also thinks Young and all of the major translations. And other than Keil's changing of the suffix from “its end” to “his end,” everything else that he reasons from is based purely upon his own a priori theological bias, and not upon anything grammatical at all. And so Keil actually twists and contorts the grammar of the text to fit his own ideas about all of this. Are you seeing this? As I have clearly demonstrated, it is primarily for theological reasons that such men as Keil do this, not for any grammatical reasons at all.

So don’t you now feel a little misled and deceived by Thomas Ice in affirming that Keil’s comments were based solely upon grammatical reasons that the antecedent noun “prince” is referring to the pronoun “he” in verse 27? Keil admittedly says he came to his own conclusions with regards to all of this based upon this “prince” being someone whom Daniel would “know” as one who would come as an antichrist based upon what God had presumably told Daniel about this individual in either chapter seven or eight. I guess Daniel must have secretly whispered this private revelation into Keil’s ear (like the angel Maroni to Joseph Smith), because I don’t see the Scriptures telling us anywhere that this “Coming One,” that was known by all saints to be coming, was to be an antichrist, but was in fact to be the Christ! Now hold that thought there! More will be said on this idea later.

Now I do agree with Thomas Ice on one point of his though: “Only [an] a priori theological bias could lead a trained interpreter of Scripture to any other conclusion” (Ibid). And this is exactly what has occurred with these individuals, not those of us who believe otherwise. If such a “shoe” fits them—and for which it does—then they must own up to it and wear it! Their own “a priori theological bias” has led them to conclusions that “the trained interpreter of Scripture”—led by the teaching influences of the Holy Spirit—just will not come to. Enough said. Let’s move on.

Now, though not common, sentence structures where the pronoun is more distant from its preceding noun are to be found in some literature. Such a structure is called: A Distant Pronoun Reference, or A Distant Antecedent. Here is an example that was noted online:

The worst part of the soccer match occurred when the Argentineans (subject) slowed the play down to almost a stand-still by not going on the attack. Even the announcer lost interest and started talking about tomorrow’s schedule. I don’t think such a match will help promote the sport of soccer in North America. They (pronoun) should know that tight defensive plays frustrates fans.

Oswald T. Allis likewise concurs, “…there are many instances in the Bible where the subject which is to be supplied to the verb is not the one which immediately or closely precedes it but another that is more remote”[36] Sadly, he didn’t give any examples of this, but I did come across a couple of examples in both the Old and New Testaments where personal pronouns are shown to have a more distant antecedent noun.

One such occurrence is in Dan. 10:20-21 thru 11:1. The word “him” in 11:1 is a singular, personal, object pronoun. The phrase “of Darius the Mede” is the object of the sentence, and a noun at that. And so the closest antecedent of “him” would seem to be “Darius,” but it isn’t. The antecedent of “him” is the object noun “Michael” in 10:21. Thus, the Amplified version writes: “Also I [the angel], in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood up to confirm and to strengthen him [Michael, the angel].” So, here we see a more “distant antecedent” object noun (Michael) accompanying an object pronoun (him). And most commentaries see it this way, as do the German Hebrew scholars, Keil and Delitzsch.

The second example occurs in 1Kin. 13:1-3, which reads,

Now behold, there came a man of God from Judah to Bethel by the word of the LORD, while Jeroboam was standing by the altar to burn incense. He cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’” Then he gave a sign the same day, saying, “This is the sign which the LORD has spoken, ‘Behold, the altar shall be split apart and the ashes which are on it shall be poured out’ (NASB).

Who cried out against the altar? The closest antecedent noun “Jeroboam”? Or, the more distant antecedent noun, “a man" of God? Of course, it is the man of God. And verse four even goes on to state that it is. This one isn’t as difficult to decipher as some. But the point can be well taken that the closest noun to a pronoun isn’t necessarily its antecedent.

A third example is found in Acts 7:2-4 (esp. v 4). In the NKJV and KJV “he” (a subject pronoun) in v. 4 refers back to Abraham (the subject) in v. 2, and not to “God” in the verse 3. Also “he” is the correct translation of the Greek in verse 3, and not “God” as other translations have it. So the “he,” or “God,” who "said" in verse 3, is not the “he” that is being referred to in verse 4. The NIV, ASV and NAS have “God” in italics showing that it is not in the original.

In Daniel 9:27, the pronoun “he” is clearly referring back to the more distant antecedent subject noun “Anointed One” in verse 26, because the pronoun “he” is more concerned with Christ’s High Priestly role and not with His role as the ruling Prince. For it is in His High Priestly role (and not in His Princely role) that Christ was to “confirm” or give strength to “a covenant with many” in the offering up of Himself to God as a bloody atoning sacrifice for the sins of the people. Christ, as High Priest, was “anointed” for this occasion, just as Aaron was earlier noted as being anointed as “most holy” for his high priestly role. But in Christ’s case, He was also “anointed” to be the King of Israel, just like David. The Messiah (the Anointed One) was anointed to be Prophet, Priest and King.

Once again, even if the pronoun “he” did refer to the “prince,” then Christ is also this “prince” in the context, and not some profane ruler or antichrist, whether back then or in our future. The context is centered around the “Messiah, a Prince,” and not a prince who is an Antichrist. Again, according to the immediate context, what other “prince” could the Word of the Lord possibly have in mind? God tells us through Daniel that it is the Messiah.

Christ as Lord rules over, reigns over, and even raises the armies of ungodly nations to mete out His judgments upon ungodly men and nations. In reality, they are His armies that He uses to mete out such judgments. The Scriptures repeatedly over and over again tell us so. Such ungodly nations God says are, “the rod of My anger…the club of My wrath! I send him [them] against a godless nation, I dispatch him [them] against a people who anger Me…Does the ax raise itself above Him who swings it, or the saw boast against Him who uses it?” (Isa. 10:5-6, 15). See also Mat. 22:7; Hab. 1:5-6; Rev. 17:17 and even Ex. 22:24, which states: “My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword.” With what sword? This was no less through the “swords” used by “the people” who served Him to such ends. They were His people that He used to mete out such judgments. We will talk about this more later.

Lastly, Dr. Radar, also a non-dispensationalist, writes with regards to this personal pronoun “he”:

Again note the pronoun “he.” The pronoun, of necessity, must refer to a noun previously used. Eliminating the modifying clauses, the previous sentence reads: “Messiah shall be cut off: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and he shall confirm the covenant.” If I were properly and correctly instructed in grammar, a pronoun cannot properly have as its antecedent the object of a modifying clause. Please note the subject of the sentence: “The people that shall come shall destroy the city.” The “he” cannot properly refer to the people, neither can it refer to the object of the modifying clause, “of the prince”; “he” can only correctly refer to Messiah. [37]

Even Thomas Ice (along with Keil) agrees that the subject is the people who do the destroying and not the prince. Therefore, he should have seen that the subject pronoun “he” cannot refer to the object noun “the prince,” nor to the subject noun “the people” (because “he” doesn’t agree with “people” in gender and number; nor does it agree with the prince as the object, for then this would require the object pronoun “him”), but agrees only with the subject noun “Messiah” in the preceding verse. Again, subject pronouns match subject nouns; and object pronouns match object nouns.

Look at what Thomas Ice again says,

the emphasis of this verse is upon “the people,” not the subordinate clause “the prince who is to come.” This passage is apparently stated this way so that this prophecy would link the Roman destruction with the AD 70 event, but at the same time setting up the Antichrist to be linked to the final week of years to the first “he” in verse 27. He is not described as the prince coming with the people, but instead a detached and distant description, as one who is coming. This suggests that the people and the prince will not arrive in history together.” [38]

This just goes to show you at what great lengths some wayward teachers will go in order to try and prove their own point, twisting the Scriptures to suit their own interpretations with, again, their own “a priori theological bias”; even ripping texts out of context in order to establish their own pretext. As I stated earlier, “of the prince” is a prepositional phrase “of possession,” meaning, it is “the people” as the subject in this sentence who are actually doing the activity of destroying for this Ruler then present. So by the very nature of the case, English grammar also dictates that we are not talking about some distant, far–removed ruler in our time, but one who is at that moment in time in close proximity and in relation to them. “The people” could not be said to be the “possession” of some distant ruler some 2,000 years removed from them, but one who was somehow and in someway in close association with them in using them to do his handiwork, kind of like a king sitting on his horse on a hill and observing his armies fighting.

Of what consequence is it that the prince, according to Ice, is “not described as the prince coming with the people”? It is a moot point. Many princes or rulers do not always necessarily accompany their people in their battles. And besides, the verse clearly says they are the people “of the” prince, whether he accompanies them in battle or not. Either way they are somehow in direct connection and association with each other. And as I stated above, and even earlier, grammatically the prince is in direct association with the people as “the object” of the people. They proceed from him. They are doing his bidding! How could a future Roman ruler and antichrist some 2,000 years removed from these people be in any way, shape, manner or form directly associated with those who destroy Jerusalem back in 70 AD ? Could former Nazis be said to actually belong to another Fuehrer off into our future? Could such a Fueher in our day be directly linked with those former Nazi’s actions? Of course not! Such notions are ridiculous and absurd. Again, it just goes to show you at what great lengths someone will go to when they are backed into a corner to believe in something so strongly as this false teaching of theirs has created. No one in their right frame of mind would think like this, let alone say such things, unless, of course, their minds have become so deluded as to make them think that anything such as this is at all quite feasible. Deceit knows no bounds to its deception. Anything is fair game. With deceit all accepted rules fly out the window only to make way for new man-made rules! Or, should I say, man-made “doctrines”?!?

In conclusion here, we have discovered that a proper understanding of the English grammar will not allow for us to simply place any personal pronoun with just any preceding antecedent noun. We must not match only gender and number, but also match CASE and person. In addition, even if there is no pronoun “he” in the Hebrew, it cannot be argued, as Allis has ably pointed out, “that ‘the prince’ is the subject of the verb ‘confirm’ just because it is nearer to it than is the word ‘Anointed One’” (ibid). We have seen that the verb “destroy” is no nearer to “the people” than the verb “confirm” is to “the anointed one”; and, therefore, to argue for the one false notion that the verb “confirm” refers to “the prince,” is to also argue for the other verb “destroy” to refer also to “the prince.” But as we have seen, such a notion is ridiculous as Allis, again, has previously stated:

This argument is more than offset by the fact that the subject of the verb "destroy" is not "prince" but "people" ("and the people of the prince, the coming one, shall destroy"). If the nearest subject must be regarded as the subject of the verb "confirm," it should be "people" not "prince." (Ibid)

In addition, another reason why the verb “confirm” cannot be referring to “the people” is because “the people” are not in the “masculine singular form of the verb” according to Hebrew, while “the Anointed One” most definitely is.

And lastly, another reason why we came to understand that the verb “confirm” cannot be referring to “the people” is because “the people” are not in the “masculine singular form of the verb” according to Hebrew, while “the Anointed One” most assuredly is.

And though rare in Scripture and secular writings, a few cases have been cited where a more distant antecedent noun can be found in relation to a pronoun. One was even noted again, no less, in the book of Daniel where all this argument began to take place in the first place. Oswald T. Allis has also shown us that “there are many instances in the Bible where the subject which is to be supplied to the verb is not the one which immediately or closely precedes it but another that is more remote” (ibid). I have shown you a few of them. And finally, even English grammar commonly refers to pronouns which are more distant from their nouns as: “A Distant Pronoun Reference or, A Distant Antecedent”

Click here for part three.



Footnotes:

[1] Daniel, the Key to Prophetic Revelation, chap. 9, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks @www.bible.org.
[2] Legend states that Achilles was killed in battle by an arrow to the heel, and so an “Achilles’ heel” has come to mean a person’s principal weakness.…(wikipedia.org).
[3] The Sovereignty of God, Intro., p. 9.
[4] http://www.momswhothink.com/reading/list-of-pronouns.html.
[5] http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm. Also, “A prepositional phrase is a group of words that begins with a preposition [such as: ‘of ’] and ends with a noun [such as “the Ruler” in our case] or a pronoun. This noun or pronoun is called the “object of the preposition.” (http://www.infoplease.com/cig/grammar-style/prepositional-phrases-big-daddy-phrases.html).
[6] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Part VIII-IX at: www.raptureme.com. The Thomas Ice Collection, op. cit.
[7] "Third person" refers to the person or people being spoken or written about (“he,” “she,” and “it” for singular, “they” for plural). http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm. In this case, the person (or subject) being written about in this entire narrative has to do with the Messiah. This entire prophecy is first and foremost about Him and with regards to His work. Everything else (the building of the city and sanctuary, and even its destruction) are all parenthetical in nature and subsequent to Christ’s greater work of the redemption that was to be wrought (v. 24) in His being cut-off (v. 26a) and in giving strength to His covenant ratified by His blood with many (v. 27; cp. Mat. 26:28 and Heb. 9:16-17).
[8] http://www.stlcc.edu/Student_Resources/Academic_Resources/writing_ Resources/Grammar_Handouts/ subj_verb_pron_agree.pdf.
[9] Great Prophecies of the Bible, p. 124.
10] Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar are no “opponent of literal interpretation.” A “literal interpretation” is exactly what they are giving according to English grammar rules. It is Thomas Ice who is giving very highly imaginative and speculative theories as to who this personal pronoun “he” is referring to. And for him, as well as others, to say it is an Antichrist some 2,000 years removed from this prophecy is not in any way, shape, manner or form understanding this 490 year time frame in the 70 weeks in a “literal” successive manner or fashion. A natural reading and “literal” interpretation of the text would not remove this 70th week from the first 69 weeks, but leave it attached.
[11] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Part VIII-IX @ www.raptureme.com. The Thomas Ice Collection.
[12] Is he referring to the subject or the object of the preceding sentence? He clearly has the “object” noun of “the prince” in mind. To be sure, the “subject” noun is the closest antecedent to be sought after. And since the subject is “the people” and not “the prince,” the only possible antecedent “subject noun” is the Messiah. “The people” are not in the masculine singular, but the Messiah is. It is also of utmost importance to understand that almost all translations supply the subject pronoun “he.” Why is this so if it were not for their understanding of the Hebrew construction here? The LXX even goes so far as to omit the pronoun altogether, with no indication as to who is doing the confirming, and translates the passage as such: “And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week My sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away. It even says “and he [the anointed one] shall destroy the city and sanctuary,” and “he shall appoint the city to desolations.” Of course, it also says that the anointed one “shall do it with the prince that is coming,” and that “they [evidently the two of them] shall be cut off…” The Septuagint with Apocrypha, by Brenton, p. 1065). How reliable they are in their translation, one can only guess. It doesn’t seem to be that which can necessarily be absolutely relied upon here.
[13] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Part VIII-IX @ www.raptureme.com. The Thomas Ice Collection.
[14] Prophecy and the Church, p. 121.
[15] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Part VIII-IX @ www.raptureme.com. The Thomas Ice Collection.
[16] Taken from his online notes on Daniel 9:27 at: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/27-26_Israels-Future-Part-3. This is all he says. There is no explanation given to us as to how he came to this conclusion, other than just saying, “that’s the proper antecedent for ‘he’.” Remarkable! I guess if John MacArthur says it, that must settle it!
[17] Barnes’ Notes on Daniel, p. 181.
[18] The Return of the Lord, chap. 5, The Seventieth Week of Daniel @ www.bible.org. Bracketed words mine.
[19] Daniel, the Key to Prophetic Revelation, Chap. 9, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks @ www.bible.org.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Many in the dispensational/premillennial camp do this. For instance, John MacArthur likewise says, “…Who is he? Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other ‘experts’) one most logically links he with the prince who is to come (Daniel 9:26). This is also the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries who go on to identify him as the Antichrist” (Grace To You, online). MacArthur belittles the “experts” and answers his own question with the similar overly simplistic answer: “One most logically thinks he with the prince who should come.” On the surface, I would agree, it does seem to “logically” apply to the prince. But it isn’t until you study the “experts” in grammar that you discover that “he” here cannot refer to “the prince,” just as the verb “destroy” doesn’t refer to the closest antecedent “the prince,” but “the people.” Furthermore, most conservative evangelical commentaries (not in the premillennial camp) do not identify him as the Antichrist. MacArthur is misleading here. He leads one to think that all “conservative evangelicals” are in favor, or in support of MacArthur’s position, when they are not. On the contrary, many are very conservative, while at the same time disagreeing with MacArthur’s analysis here of the pronoun “he.” For instance, John Calvin, a conservative evangelical, concurs: “The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week” (Daniel, p. 224).
[22] http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm.
[23] Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, chap. 9, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks @ www.bible.org.
[24] This was an assumption made by him based upon no solid or concrete evidence. It is only his opinion, or conjecture. And so no one should be misled to suppose that his analysis is true just because he thinks it is true!
[25] He is referring to the phrase “his end shall come with a flood,” in verse 26, where most reliable translations have it as “its end (or ‘the end’) shall come with a flood.” But this is a matter of personal preference as to “who” or “what” this Hebrew word “kates” is referring to. So Keil cannot be so dogmatic here and thus draw a conclusion that “the prince” is the “subject” of “his end.” It is the city and temple that is to see “its end,” and not the prince. As Albert Barnes notes in his commentary on Daniel, “It is not certain as to what the word ‘it’ here refers. It may be either the end of the city, or of the prince, or of the prophecy, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned. As the principal and immediate subject of the prophecy, however, is the city, it is more natural to refer it to that” (p. 180).
[26] Notes on Daniel taken from online at: http://bible.cc/daniel/9-26.htm. Bracketed words for clarity, mine.
[27] Just as Christ was “cut-off” or brought to and end by the overwhelming flood of Jews, so too would they see their own “end” in their persons and, more particularly, in the destruction of their city and sanctuary by an overwhelming flood of armies of people as a just retribution for their crimes, for such does the word “flood” signify, both here and elsewhere in Scripture (cp. Dan. 11:10, 22, 26; Isa. 8:7-8; Psm. 32:6; Nah. 1:8). And what Christ began to bring an end to in causing the bloody “sacrifices” and non-bloody “oblations” to cease, He would also further bring an “end” to in the desolation of the city and, more specifically, to the temple in which such sacrifices were still being offered.
[28] The Book of Daniel, p. 362.
[29] For just a few online tools with this regards, see: http://studybible.info/strongs/H7093, http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07093 and http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H7093/qets.htm.
[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_grammar.
[31] http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Four/Noun_Properties/
noun_properties.html.
[32] A Commentary on Daniel, p. 219. Words in italics his. Bold emphasis and words in brackets mine.
[33] See http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ ID/H8076/shamem.htm for these three examples and the part of speech of this word as being that of an adjective. At BibleStudyTools.com they show two examples of this adjective in Jer. 12:11 and Dan. 9:17 (see http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/ hebrew/nas/shamem-2.html). In my hardback Strong’s concordance it gives six examples besides the one here in Dan. 9:27. They are in: Isa. 49:8; Lam. 1:4, 13, 16; 3:11 and Ezk. 36:4. Why the discrepancies between these lexical study tools, I don’t know! But the fact of the matter remains is that we are talking about an adjective here that modifies a noun or the subject in the sentence, and is not to be understood as the noun or subject itself. In other words, it is not an adjectival noun. It is a description of that which is determined (i.e., desolations), not a descriptive word for a person such as a Desolator. And as Edward Young notes, it is “that determined” which is the subject here (and not the prince back in verse 26, as Keil would have us believe*) and which is to “pour upon the desolate” (or that which is determined to be poured upon that which is in a “ruin” or “devastated,” as this word here “desolate” denotes) This Hebrew word for “desolate” also comes from the root, Strong’s #8074, and whose part of speech there is a verb and thus rendered as such in Dan. 9:26 (see also http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/ fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H8074/ shamem.htm). In none of the concordances to the KJV, NAS, or the NIV do they give “desolator” as the meaning of this word, because it is only used as a verb or as an adjective, but never as a noun.
* Keil states on this last half of verse 27, “This ungodly prince who comes as the desolator of the city and the sanctuary will on that account become desolate, that the destruction irrevocably decreed by God shall pour down upon him as a flood” (vol. 9, p. 373).
[34] Ibid., p. 362.
[35] I say “supposed” because all of this is, again, nothing but conjecture. In Daniel 7, a “little horn” was to arise out of the Roman Empire that, even according to all Roman historians of that day, was divided up into ten kingdoms or regions, with each kingdom ruled by its own ruler. Three of these kingdoms were taken over by the little horn. History tells us that this “little horn” was none other than the Roman Papacy who set himself up in the temple of God (God’s Church), claiming himself with such honors no less as those who were to go to only God alone. History records for us that “three” of these “regions” or “kingdoms” were handed over to the Roman Papacy. See Barnes’ Commentary on Daniel for a further investigation into all of this. And irregardless of what one believes with regards to these passages here in Daniel 7, this person, or “little horn,” is not “the prince” mentioned in Daniel 9:26. This “prince” in Daniel 9:26 can only be either: 1) the Roman general Titus who led “the people” to destroy the city and sanctuary of Jerusalem, or; 2) as the context would necessitate it, this “prince” is the “Messiah, a Prince” in verse 25.
[36] Prophecy and the Church, p. 121.
[37] The 70th Week of Daniel. Taken from an out of print pamphlet The Researcher, 1984 (see also Ralph Woodrow’s Great Prophecies of the Bible, pp. 7, 124-125) .
[38] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, Part VIII-IX @ www.raptureme.com. The Thomas Ice Collection.