It is not the purpose of this study to do a comprehensive outline on the 70 weeks of Daniel. Much has already been written on both the dispensational and the non-dispensational sides of the fence. In other words, except for the cutting–off of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Rome’s armies, either everything in this prophecy is still yet to be fulfilled by Christ and an Antichrist in a future rebuilt temple that is again to be destroyed or, has already been fulfilled through the person and work of Christ, and via the Roman armies under Titus in the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I argue for the latter, but with a very interesting and different twist to the plot. And though not a novel idea of my own—for others have contemplated the same idea—it is a “twist” that, I believe, is absolutely biblical and in keeping with the entire context of the narrative, steering us clear from any fanciful man–made theories and speculations. “Context, context, context!” someone once cried. If we would only stick to the “context” of what the main reason and focus of what this prophecy is all about, then we will not stray from the path of truth and on into error. Throughout this prophecy the main focal point and purpose is all about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and what He was going to do as both “Prince and Savior” (cf. Acts 5:31, NIV). Not only just as a “Savior” for sins, but as both “Prince” and “Savior”; as King and as High Priest.
What is being taught today, amongst Christian believers no less, is the Jewish controversy reiterated all over again. And many Christians today have played right into their same mistake, supposing that there is still yet to be another future Jewish temple in the reoccupied city of Jerusalem, with reclaimed land promises and the re–institution of animal sacrifices (or what have you), and all in preparation for a future appearance of the Messiah in the land of Palestine. A Messiah of “second chances” no less (according to dispensationalists), because the first century Jewish Christ–rejecters rejected what Christ offered to them. This is all just simply amazing to me, seeing that many “Jews” did indeed in fact “receive” Christ after God had brought them back into the land in fulfillment of His promises to them, and then abolished the old covenant in replacement with the new covenant!
And all such similar “Judaizers,” no less, will just not stop short of trying to place Jesus on some earthly Jewish throne, in some earthly Jewish temple, and with some more Jewish carnal, earthly sacrifices; even though Christ himself affirmed that “the kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you” (Lke. 17:20-21). Or again, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is from another place…You are right in saying that I am a King. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Me” (Jhn. 18:36-37). And all those who are of Christ's sheep, from both Jews and Gentiles, indeed are “listening” to Him. And being on “the side of truth” is not being on the side that the Jews in Christ’s day were on then, nor now. And, sadly, “dispensational” brethren and Messianic Jews have played right into the same Jewish error, teaching and believing in things that should just not be taught and believed in anymore. When Jesus said, “I am not of this world” (Jhn. 17:14) we should take Him at His word. But like Peter, many are saying, “Not so Lord!” Christ's answer: “Get thee behind me Satan, for you do not savor the things of God, but the things of men.”
And to those chief priests and teachers of the law who rejected the Messiah in the first century, He said unto them, “But I tell you, from now on [lit., from this time forward] you will see [not as they had expected to “see” Him] the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mat. 26:64, ESV). And Peter concurred with Christ regarding His ascension to the right hand of the throne of God upon His resurrection, “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). And it was later that Peter also affirmed of Christ, “God exalted Him to His own right hand as Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). So Jesus is “now” (not later) both Prince (or Lord) and Anointed One (Christ); He is both Ruler and Deliverer (or Savior). And, “therefore, since we have a great High Priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess” (Heb. 4:14) and not to another earthly, carnal one that the author of Hebrews warned of falling back into. The “shadows” are behind us, “the body” of Christ which cast those shadows is now before us (cf. Col. 2:17, GWT).
The kingdom that Jesus as the Messiah offered to everyone is the kingdom that He is now ruling and reigning over from His throne in heaven, as both King and High Priest, as both “Prince and Savior.” There is no other kingdom to come or to be offered at a later time. Christ's kingdom is now a kingdom that rules over the heavens and all the kingdoms of the earth. There are to be no “second chances” of opportunity for people to repent in some future so-called “seven year tribulation,” let alone in another era of some future time. Today is the day of salvation! At the end of this reign of Christ’s, the door of this great ark of opportunity and deliverance will be closed, and the just along with the unjust will be judged on the last resurrection day at Christ's Second Coming.
Now when Jesus told the Sanhedrin that “from now on” they would “see” Him “seated” at the right hand of “power” and “coming on the clouds” of heaven, little did they realize the apocalyptic nature and meaning of such words. This “Prince” (Jesus) was “coming” in “power” to Judge them right before their very “eyes,” in the powerful destruction of both their city and sanctuary that was due to their cruel and sinful rejection of Him and His followers. They would “see” Him coming alright as the “King” He had claimed to be, but not in the way that they had envisioned seeing Him coming. His rule and throne was to be from heaven, and His people or “clouds” of armies that He would ride upon and use as His chariots to wield the desolating sword and impending temporal judgments against these Christ–rejecters, were to be the very nations that they despised. I will elaborate more on this shortly.
Of more recent tradition, even since the days of the early 1800’s, many bible teachers have often claimed that the “prince” in Daniel 9:26 is a future antichrist, but where are they getting this from? One will search high and low in the immediate context in utter futility to find such a person. As one reads the immediate context, the only “prince” mentioned that was to come is an “Anointed One, a Prince,” i.e., Jesus Christ, the Messiah in verse 25. So what is the point of waving around one’s bible college degree after having gone to bible college, and having learned the principles hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Scriptures), and the “contextual” method or rule of interpretation, if all we are to do at this point and venture is to cast aside this rule and no longer apply it here in Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy? It makes no sense to me to say that the “prince” in verse 26 is not the same “Anointed One, a Prince” in verse 25. But please bear with me, there is more to what meets the eye here than just what doesn’t make “sense” to me, as we will soon just see.
Now the main focus of this entire prophecy, which no one doubts, is to lead us up to this Prince’s (or Christ's) coming, along with the six things that were to be primarily fulfilled within the 70 weeks or 490 year time frame since the beginning of a command or word from God via Cyrus, the king of Persia, for the Jews to rebuild the city (as well as the temple) as mentioned in Isaiah 45:1–5, 13; 2Chr. 36:23 and Ezra 1:1–4. And whatever else anyone might believe as to who actually gave the “command” (or lit., “a word”) to rebuild Jerusalem, the “word” of the Lord clearly tells us that this command was to issue forth from Cyrus—not by Artaxerxes, or any other. And according to Ezra, these were the very things that the Jews had exactly attempted to do based solely upon Cyrus’ command, just short of being halted by the opposition (cf. Ezra 4:1–8). And it was especially with regards to halting the rebuilding of the city (and not just the temple) that a letter was written by this same opposition to king Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:12–13, 16 (also considered by many to be king Ahasuerus or, Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus; see vv. 6–7). This is not the latter Artaxerxes mentioned in Nehemiah, that most commentators refer to as having given this “command.” This latter Artaxerxes just allowed it to continue under the leadership of Nehemiah, but it had already been started to be restored long before that under Ezra's leadership, until halted.
Now a biblical chronology[1], as opposed to the profane chronologies of Ptolemy that are used today and off by some 80 years, shows that from Cyrus, to the anointing and baptism of Christ, that it was exactly 483 years to the day, with the last seven years remaining for Christ to give strength to and cause to prevail a new covenant with "many" from both Jews and the Gentiles.
And just as there is no indication for us as to when the first “seven weeks” (or 49 years) ended, and the following sixty two weeks began in verse 25, so too there is no “evident” time when the last 70th week to “confirm” a covenant with “many” was actually concluded with its fulfillment. But the covenant was indeed “confirmed” and firmly established beginning with the 3½ years ministry of Christ and upon His being “cut–off,” with the remaining 3½ years continuing to confirm it with both Jews and Gentiles.
It was the “confirming” of “a covenant” made earlier with Abraham, that “in thee shall all of the families of the earth be blessed.” And the point God is making through Daniel here is not a matter of how long the covenant itself would last, but how long it was to take to actually ratify or “confirm” it, first with the Jews and, then with the Gentiles. And it wasn’t long after the early Church had established themselves, and after Saul (Paul) was converted as an apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:15), that some three years later (Gal. 1:18) he goes to Jerusalem to confer with Peter the ministry that God had called him to with the Gentiles. And it was soon after Paul's conversion in Acts chapter nine that God brings Peter face to face with Cornelius, a Gentile, in Acts chapter ten. So clearly, within seven years, Christ’s new covenant is “confirmed” with both Jews and Gentiles and on its way to becoming a force to be reckoned with. And by the time that Christ’s Olivet prophecy concerning the “desolation” (not the “restoration”) of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 AD, the gospel had actually gone into all of the then known world (cf. Col. 1:6, 23).
Now any postponement of this 70th week off into our future is absolutely ludicrous and without any biblical warrant. And it is amazing to me how anyone can entertain such an idea. As Ralph Woodrow put it,
The “gap theory” is like telling a man who is about to make a journey of 70 miles that he will find the first 69 miles consecutive miles, but as he completes the 69th mile, he will find a sign telling him that the 70th or last mile is about 2,000 miles on down the road.So too, according to the dispensationalists, the time clock of prophecy on the 70 weeks of Daniel “stopped” at the 69th week, and will not be re-set to countdown the remaining 70th week until sometime in our future. Where does such a crazy and convoluted idea come from? Your guess is as good as mine: Not from above! As Edward Young remarks, “since there is no gap between the 1st period (7 sevens) and the 2nd (62 sevens), it comes as somewhat of a shock to learn that such a tremendously long gap must occur between the last two sevens.”[3] Simple logic requires that the 70th week follows immediately after the 69th week, just as the 70th year of the captivity was to follow on the heels of the 69th year. If not, then neither can properly be called the 70th, can they? And with regards to the 70 weeks, there would now be many weeks between the 69th and 70th week which would roughly make it today the 284th week since the 69th (2011 AD - 26 AD of Christ‘s baptism/anointing = 1,985 years, or 283.57 weeks). Remarkable! Understood this way, it has now been roughly 353 weeks or 2,469 years since this prophecy originated with the going forth of the command in 458 BC—way beyond the 70 weeks or 490 year time frame allotted by God for its fulfillment. Now just as no one would hesitate to understand that there is no gap between the first set of 7 weeks and the second set of 62 weeks, so too no one should hesitate in understanding that there is no gap between the second set and the third set of 1 week. Any other sense with regards to all of this, is just utter nonsense!
Or suppose two men are leaving Los Angeles to drive to Chicago. The one man asks the driver: “How far is it to Chicago?” “Seventy miles,” the driver answers. But after they drive 69 miles, they are far from Chicago. They are still in California, in fact! “Didn’t you tell me it was 70 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago?” “Well, it is 70 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago,” the driver replies, “but there is a gap, a great parenthesis, of 2,000 miles that I didn’t tell you about. You see, the speedometer is set so that it registers only the first 69 miles and then stops. When we have driven another 2,000 miles and start the final mile into Chicago, then it will start again and tick out the 70th mile. [2]
From whence then comes this error of separation? Quite frankly, most of this error is based upon a misunderstanding of who this “prince” really is in verse 26, and who the personal, subject, pronoun “he” is that confirms a covenant with many for one week in verse 27. And even if this “prince” were not Christ, no one has any authority whatsoever to distance this “prince” from “the people” by some 2,000 years, and say “the people” of the then known Roman empire came and destroyed the city in 70 AD, but “the prince” is still yet to come in a future, revived, Roman empire. Such a contortion and distortion of the text is only a futile and desperate attempt to try and make a square peg fit into a round hole.
The Hebrew word for “confirm” here in verse 27 is, “gawbar,” and means to prevail, to make strong or strengthen; to make firm. Now some would even go so far as to say that nowhere is it stated in Scripture that Christ would come to give “strength” to such a covenant, but I beg to differ. In Hebrews 9:16-17, it says with regards to Christ giving strength to His new covenant, “In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force [Gk. ischuo, lit., “strengthened”] only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.” Christ had to “die” first, or be “cut-off,” as Daniel tells us, in order to give “strength” to, and establish, the new covenant. Indeed He “confirmed” it upon His death! And it was ratified in His blood, as all "blood" covenants are (see also Mat. 26:28).
Paul similarly declared, "that the Messiah became a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth in order to confirm [Gk. bebaiosai; lit., to make sure, secure, establish and strengthen] the promises given to our ancestors, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, 'That is why I will praise you among the Gentiles…'" (Rom. 15:9, ISV). These are the “many” that Daniel said the Messiah came to “confirm” a covenant with.
This same word used here in Romans above is used also in Mk. 16:20 concerning the “confirming” of the Word spoken by the apostles, and, again, in Heb. 2:3, of the salvation spoken through the Lord and “confirmed” by the apostles. The noun form, bebaiosis, is used in Php. 1:7 of the “confirmation” of the gospel, and in 1Cor. 1:6 the verb form, ebebaiōthē, is again used of the testimony of Christ being “confirmed” in all of us.
In Gal. 3:17, the Greek word for “confirm,” prokekurōmenēn, is denoted by W. E. Vines as, “to confirm or ratify before…the Divine confirmation of a promise given originally to Abraham, Gen. 12, and confirmed by the vision of the furnace and torch, Gen. 15, by the birth of Isaac, Gen. 21, and by the oath of God, Gen. 22, all before the giving of the law."[4] And just previously in speaking of human covenants ratified or confirmed by men, Gal. 3:15 states, “Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed [Gk., kekurōmenēn], no man cancels, or adds thereto” (AKJV). So, similarly, Paul states here that God “confirmed” a covenant with Abraham and eventually ratified it in His own blood (cf. Acts 20:28) in the sacrificial offering of His Son on the cross (cp. Gen. 22:8).
It should also be briefly noted here that it makes no difference whether it was “a” covenant, or “the” covenant mentioned here by Daniel, just as it makes no difference really whether Messiah is called “a Prince” in verse 25 or, if He is called “the” Prince in verse 26, other than the fact that the definite article does lend more weight to the idea of someone who is “known” (such as the coming of the Messiah) as opposed to someone who is not fully known to be coming. But no one should argue that just because the Messiah is not denoted as “the” Prince in verse 25, that He is not really “the” coming Prince of all princes in verse 26 that was long expected to come even before Daniel's time (for example, see also Mic. 5:2-5). To argue over little insignificant articles like this, such as “a” and “the,” is of no benefit to the hearers in determining who this Prince really is. In context, this Prince is the Messiah. This alone should settle the issue for us. But since it doesn't for many, further elaboration will be given in the foregoing pages.
Now the actual Greek word for the Hebrew verb “gawbar” (or “confirm”) that is used in the Greek Septuagint translation, is the verb “dunamosei” which is from the Greek noun “dunamis.” Similar to the Hebrew gawbar, this Greek word also denotes the active force of making strong, to confirm, or to give ability and power to something or someone.[5] In Acts 4:33, it is said that, “with great [confirming] power [dunamei] the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus…” Interestingly, W. E. Vine notes how that the Greek ischuo, used of the Messiah’s death above in Heb. 9:17 in order to confirm His testament or will, that it, “indicates a more forceful strength or ability than dunamai.”[6] And one can very-well see why! Christ’s death enforced the covenant in a way that made everything else that confirmed it pale in comparison.
As in English, so too in Greek all of these synonyms denote this multi-faceted idea of the confirming power and validity of what Christ did on the cross in establishing and ratifying His new covenant with us. Did the Messiah “confirm” a new covenant with all of His believers? You bet He did! In many ways, and in divers manners, our Messiah “confirmed” His gospel and new covenant in and through us. And the most powerful (ischuo) confirmation of all these was in His death as a testator of His new covenant in the shedding of His blood.
Now after all this, would anyone dare to argue that the Messiah did not confirm a covenant with many? Let all gainsayers be silenced! All I can say to all of this is that, just as with Job’s three friends, the Lord will indeed likewise “confirm” on the last and final day all those who are speaking the truth about Him, as opposed to all those who are not. And we will all one day have to give an account for all the idle words that we have spoken out of our mouths (cf. Mat. 12:36).
Now just because Daniel 9:26 says He was “cut-off” after the 69th week, doesn’t mean that He was cut-off immediately afterwards. Verse 26 says that three things are to occur “after” the completion of the 62 weeks (or the 69th week, if you add in also the first 7 weeks). The first thing that is said to happen is, that “the anointed one shall be cut off.” Secondly, that “the people…shall destroy the city and sanctuary.” And thirdly, that “the prince…shall come” in which the “people” who do the destroying are under.
What is interesting about all of this is that dispensationalists will say that the word “after” here can only mean that the Messiah is to be cut-off immediately after the 69 weeks, but the people of the Roman armies that are said to also come “after” these 69 weeks to destroy the city and sanctuary, didn’t come until 40 years later in 70 AD. Here it is clearly evident that they are not consistent with their usage of terminology. For them, the Messiah cannot be “cut-off” 3½ years later in the middle of the 70th week, it can only be immediately after, or on the heels of the 69th week; but when it comes to “the people” destroying the city and sanctuary, they now conveniently give them more space and time to fulfill that at a later date via the Roman armies. They have inadvertently tripped over their own words.
Now notice also what dispensationalists say about this “coming prince” of the people. They have determined that he is not an immediate prince of these people back in 70 AD, but a future prince, and even an antichrist, that is still yet to come sometime in our future in a revived Roman empire no less some 2,000 years later. Yep, the Roman empire is going to be revived! Of all the kingdoms of Babylon, the Media–Persian's, the Grecian's and the Roman's that the Rock, or Christ, was to dash to pieces in the inauguration of His kingdom and “sweep away as the summer chaff on the threshing floor without leaving a trace” in Daniel 2:35, of the Romans it is said by dispensationalists that they shall be revived! And this is all because, according to them, the “he” that confirms a covenant with many for one week has to be a future “prince” who of necessity must come out of a revived Roman empire, because no one (such as Titus) ever appeared to confirm such a covenant with the “many.” And since it is agreed that “the people” are Romans, it is also natural for them to suppose that the Prince is a Roman. But since Titus didn't confirm a covenant with anyone, of necessity a future Roman prince must arise from a revived Roman empire. And get this: the destruction to follow in verse 27 (and not the one in v. 26 that, according to them, happened in 70 AD) is still yet another future desolation of yet another future rebuilt temple in our time that God is supposedly prophesying about, along with reinstated animal sacrifices that this “prince” (or “antichrist”) is suppose to cause to cease after 3 ½ years.i Let me tell you, if someone can believe all that as opposed to what is being presented in this book, then they really need to have their head examined. Seriously! There is no end to what their minds will conjure up. And furthermore, God is no longer behind future rebuilt temples with animal sacrifices. According to the NT epistles, and especially in the book of Hebrews, the days of such things to be rebuilt anymore are over. God is no longer behind such “Jewish” ideologies. That old covenant with all of its “old” and antiquated promises is over. The ties that use to bind both the natural Jew and the Lord are over with! A new day with a new covenant has now dawned upon us—with better promises for both Jews and Gentiles.
Albert Barnes in his commentary on Daniel notes with regards to this Hebrew word for “after,”
The word does not mean necessarily immediately, but it denotes what is to succeed—to follow—and would be well expressed by the word “afterward:” Genesis 15:14; Genesis 23:19; Genesis 25:26, et al. See Gesenius’ Lexicon. The natural meaning here would be, that this would be the “next event” in the order of events to be reckoned; it would be that on which the prophetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the prophecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immediately follow:German commentators, Keil and Delitzsch, also remark on this word “after,”
(a) One is, that in the previous verse it is said that the “sixty-two weeks” would extend “unto the Messiah;” that is, either to his birth or to his manifestation as such; and it is not implied anywhere that he would be “cut off” at once on his appearing, nor is such a supposition reasonable, or one that would have been embraced by an ancient student of the prophecies;
(b) The other is, that, in the subsequent verse, it is expressly said that what he would accomplish in causing the oblation to cease would occur “in the midst of the week;” that is, of the remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if he were to be “cut off” immediately at the close of the sixty-two weeks.
The careful student of this prophecy, therefore, would anticipate that the Messiah would appear at the close of the sixty-two weeks, and that he would continue during a part, at least, of the remaining one week before he would be cut off. This point could have been clearly made out from the prophecy before the Messiah came. [7]
“After the threescore and two weeks,” i.e., in the seventieth שבוע, shall the Messiah be cut off. - From the אחרי (after) it does not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents vers. 26 and 27. [8]Of the three things referred to above in verse 26, one of them occurred in verse 27 in the midst of the 70th week, the other two did not. But they all indeed occurred “after” the 69th week. For one to determine that Christ was immediately cut–off upon the ending of the 69th week is to read into the text something that, quite frankly, just isn’t there. It is assuming more than is necessary. On the other hand, we do know that Christ was “cut–off” or killed roughly 3½ years after His baptism and “anointing,’ and that this coincides perfectly with the one who would “after” the 69th week give strength to, and cause to “prevail,” a covenant; thus causing the sacrifices and oblations to cease 3½ years into the middle of the 70th week—at least in Christ's and God's eyes they cease to be! And the gates of hell would not “prevail” against this covenant, but this covenant would indeed “prevail” with full force and “strength” against the gates of hell.
What was to mark the beginning and the end of the first 69 weeks, or 483 years, of this 70 weeks prophecy was the going forth of “a word” to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem, unto an anointed one—i.e., the “anointing” and appearance of Jesus on the scene at John’s baptism. “After” these 69 weeks, the Messiah (or, Anointed One) was to be cut-off. And 3½ years into the 70th week marks the time when the Messiah was to actually be “cut-off.” This is important to understand and realize. Otherwise, one will read into the text a wholesale fabrication of an entirely different individual of one’s own making, which has just been the case for so many. Christ’s being “cut-off” in the midst of the week marked the time when God’s dealings with the Jews as a covenant people under the Mosaic rule and law was, as Christ put it: “finished!” As a sign of God’s displeasure and departure from the Jews as a covenantal community, God himself rent the veil of their temple, and their house was left to them “abandoned” (Mat. 23:38, ISV).
Now, in the context of what Christ came to do in this prophecy, the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, with its impending destruction on the heels of Christ’s crucifixion, are both parenthetical to this prophecy and not the main reason or purpose for it. And even though while the rebuilding of the city does actually occur within the time frame of the prophecy, the destruction of the city actually occurs outside of it. The city that Daniel talks about being rebuilt here in the days of Cyrus is the same city that was to be destroyed in 70 AD after the appearance and the rejection of the Messiah. Nothing is said in Scripture about another future temple being built after all of this (even though many, while wrong, have used these same texts to prove otherwise). God is not going to revert back to the shadows again. Nor is He going to allow anyone to go forward with such a concerted effort to rebuild the temple again. Such days of literal temples, sacrifices, and festival days are over. A new day is now upon us. And furthermore, why would God want to “anoint” yet another future, literal, earthly temple in which animal sacrifices are made in direct opposition with what He has accomplished in the person and work of His Son, who is the reality and exact representation of all those types and shadows in the first place? By the very nature of the case, the days of anointing literal temples are over with! That old priesthood is over with. It has been “changed” (cf. Heb. 7:12, 18-19). That old order has been “abandoned” for the new order. The natural came first, followed by the spiritual. The natural has been supplanted for the spiritual. And so to teach anything other than this is just contrary to sound doctrine. Quite frankly, it is the doctrine of demons. At least that is how Paul would have perceived it (cf. 1Tim. 4:1-2).
So, the only reason or explanation that can be given as to why the destruction of the city and sanctuary are mentioned after Christ is being “cut–off” by these Jews, is to show His function as the Messiah who is the Prince (or Ruler) in their mistreatment of Him, in juxtaposition to His office as the Messiah who is the High Priest and Suffering Servant. Here in this 70 weeks prophecy we see Christ both as the Suffering Servant and as the King of kings. The Suffering Messiah is also—Messiah, a Prince! The former was not what the Jews were expecting, the latter was. But like I said earlier, it was to be in a way totally unexpected of them. They were blindsided in every respect. But the Messiah (Christ) did no less come as the King of kings and as “the Prince of Life” (Acts 3:15; cf. 5:31). And “those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be King over them,” Christ as Lord says, “bring them here and kill them in front of Me” (Lke. 19:27). This is exactly what He did to them for their mistreatment of Him and all of His prophets that He sent to them (cf. Mat. 22:7; 23:35–39; 24:15; Lke. 19:41–44). He brought “those wretches to a wretched end,” just as the Jews whom Christ was speaking to said He should do (cf. Mat. 21:40–41). For cutting Him off, He would cut them off. And as we will soon see in more vivid detail later, the “people” of this very “Prince,” King Jesus, did indeed come to destroy both city and sanctuary, along with all of its residents.
Josephus tells us that in 70 AD over a million Jews died within the city walls, and about a hundred thousand were taken away captive by the Roman armies. One was definitely taken and another left, just as Jesus had said there would be. And wherever there was a dead carcass of those Jews who were without the life of Christ, there the vultures of the Roman legions were gathered together to feed upon them with a frenzy and a voracious appetite. King Jesus had spoken, “There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will [be left to] fall by the sword and be taken as prisoners to all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Lke. 21:23-24). The King of kings with His Roman legions trampled upon the city until the times of their trampling was completely fulfilled. Their house was made desolate by Christ and His desolating armies, never to be rebuilt again.
So, the six things primarily to be fulfilled in this 70 weeks prophecy were: 1) to finish (or restrain) transgression; 2) make an end of sins; 3) make reconciliation (or atonement) for iniquity; 4) bring in everlasting righteousness; 5) seal up vision and prophecy; 6) to anoint the most holy. And though dispensationalists would disagree, everyone of these things were spiritually accomplished in and through Christ upon His anointing at John’s baptism and in His work on the cross. And as said before, in God’s mind the sacrifices and oblations had ceased to have any relevance any longer. And as I said before, in God's mind they had “ceased” to be propitiatory any longer. Christ’s blood was the only thing that appeased the wrath of God from that time forward. For the followers of Christ in that day, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, this was absolutely and unequivocally realized and understood by them to be no less true. But for the natural, unbelieving Jews it would not be fully realized that it was indeed over until 40 years later in the destruction of both their city and temple. And it has been realized now for almost 2,000 years. Just like Rome, Greece, the Media-Persians, Babylon and all the other previous empires, Israel’s house and national existence as a natural theocracy under Mosaic Law and under God’s rule as His covenant people was left unto them “desolate” (Mat. 23:38; lit., “abandoned”), never to be allowed by God to be rebuilt again. That old covenant is over, never to be honored by God again. There are no more promises to be fulfilled for the Jews other than through faith in Christ. Their national existence as one nation under God is over. That they are a “nation” now is no different than any other country that is also called a “nation.” In fact, the Jews that are now there in Israel aren’t even full-blooded Jews any longer. And most of them are not even “partial” Jews, if you can even call them that. Most of them are Ashkenazim Jews who back in the tenth century were Khazars who, in seeking out a religion, had converted to Judaism, while the remainder are Sephardim Jews who migrated out of Spain. And, as such, there are no longer any genealogical records proving their ancestry. Just ask them! Even the 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 12, p. 1, 054 states, “The Jews as a Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to popular view, there is no Jewish race.” But regardless of all this, God’s former terms of agreement with the Jews as a “covenant” community of people has been abrogated at the cross. The days of temple building and literal animal sacrifices are over. And a new day with a new covenant from God is now upon us.
Up until only the last couple of hundred years, everyone throughout church history has pretty much maintained that these six things mentioned in Daniel 9:24 were somehow and in someway fulfilled in the person and work of Christ on the cross. Even the phrase, “the anointing of the most holy,” which is often used to describe the anointing of “things” in the OT[9], can, and has, been used to describe “persons” as being “most holy.” And so it should come as no surprise to us that this is how we are to understand it here of Christ. The Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch make note of this in 1Chr. 23:13, which correctly reads in the NAS: “The sons of Amram were Aaron and Moses. And Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as most holy, he and his sons forever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister to Him and to bless in His name forever.” So also reads the Darby translation and the Bible in Basic English. And another verse that clearly supports this idea is in Lev. 27:28 concerning vows, where it reads: “But no devoted thing that a man devotes to the LORD, of anything that he has, whether man or beast, or of his inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the LORD” (NAS). So let no one doubt that the “most holy” being anointed in Dan. 9:24 is none other than the Messiah (whose name actually means: “anointed one”). This in itself should have alerted us to the fact of who or what is being anointed. Again, the context has proved itself once again. The most holiest of all is Jesus!
So, in getting back to this “prince” in verse 26, as noted before, there is nothing in the context that would lead us to believe that this individual is to be understood any differently than the same “prince” that is mentioned in verse 25. The “context” clearly establishes beyond all doubt that this “prince” in verse 26 is none other than the same “Prince” in verse 25. This prophecy is all about the coming of this Messiah and Prince; and the very next verse says “the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary.” Could it be anymore clearer for us? And unless a person has a private theory or interpretation to uphold, there is no reason for us to suppose that this “prince” in verse 26 is a different “prince” than the one just immediately stated to us in verse 25. The text should just “naturally” leads us to assume that they are both one and the selfsame individual.
Now the only real reason that the “prince” in verse 26 has not been understood to be the “prince” in verse 25, is: 1) because it has been difficult for many to understand “the people” here as referring to those whom Christ would Himself use to mete out such judgments, and; 2) some have supposed that the phrase “its end will come with a flood” in v. 26, should be translated, “his end will come with a flood,” indicating that it is this prince who is to see his end by these desolating armies (similar to Julius Caesar being killed by his own people), and not referring to the end of the city and sanctuary. According to Keil and Delitzsch, there are four different explanations given for this phrase: One, is the time of the end of the days of the prince; the second, is the time of the end of the sanctuary; third, the time of the end of the city and sanctuary, and; fourthly, some choose to leave this phrase in “the neuter” as a reference to the time of the destruction itself coming to its end. There is a translation to support most of these scenarios. But most of the reliable ones such as the ASV, RSV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, and even the more current and up-to-date literal translation of the ESV, all translate it: “the end” or “its end.” These translations are similarly followed by the AMP, NIV, TNIV, HCS, NCV, BBE, DBY, DRB, NLT, WBT, WEB, MSG, TMB, and HNV. And even Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) likewise casts in its vote in favor of “its end.” The only translations that don’t support it are God’s Word Translation, the NET Bible (a dispensational influenced translation) and the ERV. So the overwhelming majority vote is for “its end” or “the end.” Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Anyway, more will be said on all of this later. 3) Thirdly, it is also often mistakenly understood by not a few that what occurs in the destruction of the city and sanctuary here must occur within the 70 week timeframe, especially the destruction that is spoken about in verse 27. But as has been already noted, it doesn’t. And history attests to this fact that it didn’t. So we are on solid ground. And as we have seen, this was not the main purpose of this prophecy, but was only secondary and subsequent to it. It is only stated as a natural inference and consequence of what was to happen as a result of the Jews crucifying Christ and cutting Him off, thus becoming by its very nature a parenthetical thought or pause to expound upon their own demise and cutting off (in v. 26), with the prophecy continuing with what is to occur within the 70th week, followed again by the judgments continuing to be pronounced upon the Jews in the remainder of verse 27. Repeatedly, in the Passion week, Christ connects His being “cut–off” with the destruction of the city, as both cause and effect (cf. Mat. 21:37–41; 23:37, 38; Lke. 21:20–24; 23:28–31), so with this regards Daniel is no different.
Keil and Delitzsch likewise make this observation with regards to this above idea,
If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach [Anointed] that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach [Anointed], and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid [Prince], then by Maschiach [Anointed] we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach [Anointed] had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias [the Messiah] whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Haevernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach [Anointed] of this verse [v. 26] as identical with the Maschiach Nagid [Anointed Prince] of Daniel 9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed….In consequence of the cutting off the [Anointed] destruction falls upon the city and sanctuary. [10]Additionally, when Jesus in His Olivet discourse talked about “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Mat. 24:15), He had no other abomination in mind in Daniel other than the one mentioned in our text here in Daniel chapter nine. There is no other one to speak of! And it was this one that the Jews were to see occur in 70 AD upon the heels of their “cutting off“ the Messiah. All the other abominations of desolations mentioned in Dan. 8:11-14; 11:31; 12:11 were all fulfilled under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. [11]
Now, Daniel 9:24-27 reads,
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut-off, and shall have nothing: 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 even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. 27 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 (ASV).I chose the American Standard Version translation because, I believe, it expresses more than any other translation the accuracy of what God is saying through the prophet Daniel here. And I highlighted a specific portion of this prophecy, because, as the title of this article indicates, this discussion will focus mainly on the phrase highlighted above, "the Prince" and “the people of the Prince that shall come.” In the title of this article, I refer to him as “the Coming One,” and there is ample reason and precedent for this, as we will soon just see.
The first and foremost purpose of this thesis is to fully understand who this “prince” is in verse 26. Secondly, who “the people” of this prince are. And, thirdly, to ascertain who the personal, singular, masculine, subject pronoun “he” is referring to in verse 27. But once we understand who this “prince” really is, all the contention about who this subject pronoun “he” is referring to in verse 27 really becomes a moot point. If we can understand who this mystery “prince” really is, then the rest of this prophecy really just becomes a walk in the park as far as I am concerned. But before we hone in on “the prince” of this verse, I feel it is necessary to first of all get this personal, subject, pronoun “he” out of the way before we begin. Click here for part two.
Footnotes:
[1] For an excellent study of a biblical chronology, I highly recommend Martin Anstey’s The Romance of Biblical Chronology and Philip Mauro’s The Wonders of Bible Chronology. The former can be found online at: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_anstey_romance.html. The latter can be purchased still online at Amazon, or somewhere else. A “biblical” chronology places Cyrus at 458 BC, instead of Artaxerxes, and the 483 year prophecy to “anoint the most holy,” or Christ, is fixed at His baptism by John in 26 AD, which was also the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar’s reign and when Christ was at this time “about thirty”[*] (cf. Lke. 3:1, 23). So, 458 BC + 26 AD - 1 (for no year zero btwn. BC and AD) = 483 years. On the 4th Passover according to Jhn. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4 and 11:55, Christ was crucified 3½ years later in 30 AD, on a Friday, April 7th (Nisan 14), according to astronomical projections. See the two following websites for these projections: 1) The following astronomical calendar was ascertained as evidence for supporting a 31 AD crucifixion, inadvertently showing a 30 AD, Friday crucifixion on Nisan 14, Hebrew year 3790, Friday, April 5, Gregorian (Fri., April 7, Julian); http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/Passover_dates.htm; 2) In 2003, two Romanian astronomers as noted at: http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/000736.html, came to the same calendar day and year (without any prior knowledge of these others above, that I am aware of), and determined that there were only two possible years that could work for a “Friday” crucifixion: 30 AD and 33 AD. Any other year is either too early or too late.
Clearly, a lot more could be said at this point concerning all of this, but time and space just will not permit me to do this right now. Suffice it to say for now, Anstey’s and Mauro’s books give someone plenty to digest and get started down this long and arduous road of trying to understand all of this. There is even a Hebrew calendar converter online that establishes “Wednesday” as a viable day in 30 A.D., and it is only one’s analysis of many other pertinent passages in the Scriptures that can help one to conclude whether Christ was crucified on a “Wednesday” or “Friday.” Many dispensationalists see it as “Thursday,” in accordance with Sir Robert Anderson’s computations. But he was so off in his analysis of everything that it isn’t even funny. My readers can refer to his computational errors at the bottom right column of my blog under my “favorite websites.”
[*] History tells us that Herod died 4 BC, one year after Christ must have been born most likely in 5 BC. Now from 5 BC to 26 AD (minus 1 for going from BC to AD) = 30 years of age.
[2] Great Prophecies of the Bible, p. 131.
[3] A Commentary on Daniel, p. 214.
[4] Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 226.
[5] Ibid. All these meanings (including “confirm”) are given by Vine’s with regards to the variants of the verbs used for dunamis. See under “ability,” p. 12. To “confirm” just simply means: “to establish…validate…make firm…strengthen” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confirm).
[6] Ibid., under “ability” on p. 12.
[7] Notes on Daniel taken from online at: http://bible.cc/daniel/9-26.htm.
[8] The Book of Daniel, p.359.
[9] “The most holy.” Heb. qodesh qodashim, “something most holy,” or, “someone most holy.” The Hebrew phrase is also applied to the altar (Ex. 29:37; 40:10), other vessels and furniture pertaining to the tabernacle (Ex. 30:29), the holy perfume (Ex. 30:36), specified meat offerings (Lev. 2:3,10; 6:17; 10:12), trespass offerings (Lev. 7:1,6), the shewbread (Lev. 24:5-9), the holy district (Num. 18:10; Eze. 43:12), and even the most holy place of the sanctuary (Ex. 26:33,34).
[10] Ibid., pp. 360 and 362. Words in brackets mine for clarity.
[11] See Sam Storm’s excellent commentary on all of this at: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/112-1213/. Also read Albert Barnes’ commentary on Daniel for a more fuller explanation. I too wrote a commentary on these passages of Scripture, similar to the ideas presented above by Storms and Barnes, but time and space will not permit me to discuss all that here. Maybe one of these days I will post those comments also. I would also suggest reading I and II Maccabees and the recordings of Josephus on Antiochus Epiphanes to see how this person well fits the descriptions given by Daniel, especially in v. 46 where it is said of him “pitching his tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain.” Before his death in Persia, his troops had literally pitched their “tents” in Emmaus, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, in preparation for attacking Israel. Antiochus died in Persia before returning to wage war, while his troops were circumvented by the Maccabees. While Antiochus was in Israel, he had possession of Zion, the temple, and all of Jerusalem; even sacrificing a pig on the brazen altar in defiance of Israel’s God. This abomination of desolation by him went on for approximately 3½ years, according to Josephus (Wars, 1.1.1).
