Saturday, June 17, 2017

A Short & Concise Analysis of "He" in Dan. 9:27



In grammar, the personal, third person, masculine, singular, subject pronoun “he” in Dan. 9:27 must, I repeat, must agree with an antecedent subject noun; not just any noun, mind you, but a “subject” noun. Therefore, the subject pronoun “he” does NOT refer to the noun “Prince” in the second sentence of verse 26, because it is NOT a subject noun. It is an object noun. The noun "Prince" is the object of the people who are the subject in that sentence, and who do the actual destroying for this Prince.[1] You can always tell the subject of the sentence by who or what is doing the action of the verb. In this case, in verse 26b, it is “the people” who are actually doing the action of "destroying" for this Prince. The noun “Prince,” by the very nature of the case, cannot and does not agree with the subject pronoun “he.” And since “people” is not a singular, masculine subject noun, we must look for what is called in grammar "a more distant antecedent subject noun" that agrees with the subject pronoun "he" in verse 27. And THAT subject noun is none other than the Messiah in the first sentence of verse 26. As it turns out, from a grammatical standpoint, the Messiah who is “cut-off” in verse 26 is in fact “he” who confirms (or gives strength to) a covenant in the space of one week (or seven years) in verse 27, causing (in God’s mind) both sacrifices and offerings to cease in the midst of that week (after 3 1/2 yrs.) by the Messiah being cut-off, in order to ratify and give strength to that covenant. There would have been no “strength” in it (or “teeth” in it), if it were not for the shedding of Christ’s blood. And this “strength” of it is also witnessed in the fact that this covenant was establish with both Jews and Gentiles in the space of seven years, going on to be a force to be reckoned with.

What has been said above about English subject noun and pronoun agreement, is also to be said of the third person, singular, masculine, subject Hebrew verb used for our English word “confirm.” The English translation “he shall confirm” is actually derived from this one Hebrew verb. This verb is likewise to have as it antecedent noun a subject noun. As Oswald T. Allis succinctly notes:
It is argued that “prince” is the subject of the verb “confirm” because it is nearer to it than 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...shall destroy”)....If the nearest subject must be regarded as the subject of the verb “confirm,” it should be “people” not “prince.”[2]
Did you catch that? No one, familiar with grammar, doubts that the verb “confirm” needs an antecedent subject noun. The noun “prince,” as it turns out, does not fit; and neither does the subject noun “people.” So a more distant antecedent subject noun must be sought after. And, again, THAT antecedent subject noun is the Messiah. Do you see what Allis is saying? If not, then read it and re-read it until you do. This is not rocket science. It is all very simple grammar 101. And it is just for this reason that many who are wise in their own eyes have missed this and have stumbled over it, making it more complex than it really is. An a priori theological bias that sees “Prince” here in verse 26 as the antecedent noun to the English pronoun “he,” or even to the Hebrew verb “confirm,” because it is closer (or “nearer”) to it, simply will not suffice. At best, its an uneducated guess that is NOT rooted in the education of proper grammar. And if all that were not enough, even the Hebrew scholar, Edward Young, makes this acute remark:
To construe “prince” as subject, does not appear to be the most natural reading, for the word [“prince”] occupies only a subordinate position...in vs. 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 in vs. 26 need not refer to the prince but more likely to the end of the destruction as such.[3] 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 [the] antecedent of “he will confirm.”[4]
Now if all this mentioned above be the case, which it is, then it still leaves us with the question of who this “Prince” is in verse 26 and the nature of his business. The context tells the story. Someone has rightly said, “Context, context, context! If we will only stick to the context we will not read into it something that just isn’t there.” And clearly, in context, this “Prince” is “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 24. This is a clear biblical exegesis, not an eisegesis. And clearly, it is not as the “Prince” or Ruler that the Messiah (Christ) would confirm this blood covenant; it was to be as the Messiah the Suffering Servant who was “cut-off.” This is why, I believe, that “Prince” in verse 26 isn’t associated with the pronoun “he” in verse 27 which has to do with the Messiah’s priestly sacerdotal ministry, and not with His kingly ruling ministry as the Judge of all the earth. Because of the Jews rejection of Christ, He would reject them in the overthrowing of their theocracy in 70 AD. Thus, the seventy weeks and all that has been said in verses 24-27 have been fulfilled in Christ as both Priest and King. And these passages in Daniel are what Christ refers to in Mat. 24:15; Mk. 13:14 and Lke. 21:20. The other abominations of desolation that Daniel refers to in 8:8-14; 11:31 and 12:7, 11 are all referring to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (and even the entire chapter of chapter 11). And Albert Barnes in his commentary, Barnes’ Notes, articulates all of this very well. It is good “critical scholarship.” And it is a good place to start when studying this very vital and important subject. The interpretation of all of these passages shapes our end-time eschatological worldview. Barnes’ Notes is in public domain and can be accessed pretty much anywhere online. Biblehub.com is just one of those sites. Click here to also read Sam Storms’ thoughts on all of this. I too have done extensive research on all of this, creating my own commentary on all of these verses, especially as it relates to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes in chapters 11-12, and NOT to a future antichrist at all. And maybe someday I will make that available online. But, for now, those mentioned above will suffice. But rest assured, Dan. 9:26-27 is not about a future antichrist, but about the Christ; not about a false Christ, but about the true Christ who is both Priest and Prince.

Now, if “Prince” in verse 26 is “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 24, many question how these “people” (which all agree are armies) can be considered Christ's (or God’s) armies.[5] But the Scriptures are replete with God using the heathen armies of one nation to overthrow another nation. Isaiah 10 is just one good example of this where the Lord uses the Assyrians as His “axe,” “club,” “saw” and “rod” to judge Israel with. And concerning king Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians overthrowing other nations, including Israel, God says, “he did it for me” (Ezk. 29:20). Many more OT examples could be cited, but I will leave that for you to read in my book mentioned later. Similarly, in Mat. 22:7, because of the Jews rejection of Christ and His servants, Christ states how that, “The King became angry. He sent his soldiers [the Roman armies], killed those murderers, and burned their city” (GWT).” What king, might we ask, would do this? In context, it's God! And God is Christ, and Christ is God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all co-regents. And Christ is King now, not just later as many erroneously contend (see Mk. 16:19; Jhn. 18:37b; 19:12b, 21b; Acts 2:29-36; 5:31; 17:7; 1Tim. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; Rev. 3:21; 17:14; 19:16, et al).

Now all of this is a subject that has been very dear to my heart, and for which I have spent a great deal of time upon in my more lengthy article in this blog, and even in greater detail in my book called: The People of the Prince, the Coming One! Much more is said in this book that this short analysis just doesn’t cover. It can be purchased at Lulu Press and in any bookstore. But be forewarned. It is not for the faint of heart. Your mind will be exercised to think in a manner in which most have never been exercised before. It is time for Christians to think more deeply, and not just settle for some pithy superficial arguments based upon human arguments. Like the Bereans, we MUST study to show ourselves approved UNTO GOD (and not unto men), as a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. And what has been said above is in fact “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” It is Scripture interpreting Scripture. It is not the doctrines, commandments and teachings of men that make the Word of God of no affect.

I’ve said all that needs to be said concerning Dan. 9:27. Nothing more and nothing less needs to be said. Understanding proper grammar tells us that the singular, masculine, third person, subject pronoun “he” is the Messiah, or the Anointed One in the first part of verse 26. And when comparing Scripture with Scripture in the immediate context, the “Prince” in the latter part of verse 26 is no less “the Messiah, the Prince” in verse 25. In Dan. 9:24-27 we see the Messiah as both the Suffering Servant and the Prince (or Ruler) of all the earth. It is even as Peter and the other apostles exclaimed of Him in Acts: “God exalted Him to His own right hand as Prince and Savior” (5:31); as “both Lord and Christ” (2:36).

Go in God’s grace. And may the Lord give you the eyes to see and the ears to hear what the Spirit of God is truly saying to the Church.


Footnotes:

[1] Subject pronouns agree with subject nouns, and object pronouns agree with object nouns. “He” is the subject pronoun of the subject noun “Messiah,” while “him” would be the object pronoun of the object noun “prince.” See the following website for a simple explanation of this: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/modulePAA.htm.
[2] Prophecy and the Church (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1977), p. 121.
[3] Most translations, translate the Hebrew with “its end” or “the end,” and not “his end.” And since we are talking about the Messiah as Prince and Ruler bringing upon the Jews the desolation pronounced, this now makes all the more sense. Verse 26 is talking about the city and the sanctuary’s end, not the Messiah’s end. Most of the reliable translations 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 (along with a couple of other lesser known translations). But the overwhelming majority vote is for “its end” or “the end.”

Additionally, the word “desolate” at the end of verse 27 does not refer to a person or individual who is made desolate or brought to an end, but is rather impersonal (an adjective and not a noun) and refers to the final end or time of the desolation, which is the time allotted by God for the Romans to destroy the city and sanctuary. Again, Edward Young succinctly notes: “The end determined will pour out, not upon a desolator, but upon the desolate. Gaebelein’s interpretation appears to be based upon the English Bible alone. The Heb. text will not allow such a view. The last half of v. 27 presents one of the principal stumbling-blocks in the way of the dispensational interpretation.” (Daniel., p. 219). See the KJV, NKJV, ASV, DRB, DBT, WBS, WEB, NCV and LXX which translate this Hebrew word used here as “the desolate” or “desolation,” and not “the desolator.” What is determined is not the end of either a Roman prince, or the One who is actually to come (i.e., 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 noted above, but the time of “the end” as determined by God for the city and sanctuary to become desolate. The Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) really does a good job of presenting this idea. It reads: “...and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.”
[4] Edward Young, Daniel (Edinburg: Banner of Truth, 1988), p. 208.
[5] Many also question how these armies could be Christ’s armies, since He is said to be “cut-off” in verse 26. But as we as Christians all know very well, Christ being physically killed here on earth has not ended His ability to rule as the King of kings from heaven, which He is in fact now doing. Christ is now the ruling Judge over all the earth.

When Stephen had told the Jews that “Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place” (Acts 6:14), meaning the destruction of both the temple and the city, the false witnesses along with their leaders accused Stephen of a false accusation; for in their minds Christ was dead and had no power to do such a thing. But as we all now know from history, they were grossly wrong. God (or Christ) overthrew their temple and city via the Romans in 70 A.D., fulfilling the prophecy of Christ in the synoptic gospels.

No comments: