Post by witness1 on Feb 10, 2018 10:30:07 GMT -6
I would like to offer a slightly different interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 from what we have understood. I think much of our misunderstanding of 9:27 comes from not sorting out the pieces in 9:24-26. So here are some thoughts for you to pray on and consider. I am using the ESV, NASB, and KJV, but we can look at other translations as well. I will post the verse and then some thoughts about it below.
Daniel 9:24:
ESV: “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Daniel 9:25:
ESV: Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
NASB: "So you are to know and discern [that] from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince [there will be] seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
KJV: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
“Know therefore”: the purpose of the 70 weeks is given in verse 24, and then verse 25 begins with “therefore”. The purpose of the 70 weeks in verse 24 is to atone for iniquity and finish transgression... therefore God will send the Messiah. We see in looking at these 3 versions that the Messiah is the PRINCE who is to come. ESV calls him “the anointed one, a prince.” NASB and KJV call him “Messiah the Prince”. “Prince” is Strong’s 5057 as you can see here. The coming of Messiah the Prince is at week 69.

Daniel 9:26:
ESV: And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
NASB: “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
KJV: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
After the 62 (which is 69 since the 7 came first), but before the 63 (70), the Messiah will be cut off. “Cut off” means put to death. So somewhere in the 69th week is the death of the Messiah. We saw in verse 25 that the Messiah will come at week 69, and then verse 26 says He will be cut off after the 69th week. Since a week is 7 years, this fits perfectly with the ministry of Jesus until the time of His death if this “cut off” should occur in the middle of the week.
The people of the prince who is to come:
Why do we decide this is talking about the antichrist? The same word (Strong’s 5057- see here) is used here that is used in verse 25- only one verse prior. In verse 25, the prince is the Messiah. I see no reason to assume the prince here is different from the Prince in verse 25. Why would we call the antichrist a prince anyway?
So... would it make sense here to say that the prince is still the Messiah in this verse? I think it does. “The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” If the prince is the Messiah, who are these people? The people of the Messiah are the Jews. So now we read, “The Jews will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The city is Jerusalem and the sanctuary can be read either as the literal temple or perhaps as Jesus Himself (John 2:19). We know that the Jews did kill Jesus, so if we read Him as being the temple, that is true. Is it true that the Jews destroyed the city (and the sanctuary if sanctuary does not mean Jesus)? We know that the city was destroyed in 70AD, which would come approximately 40 years after the baptism of Jesus. Did the Jews do this though? This is what I need to understand better, but if this is about the Mosaic covenant, then the exile and destruction could well have been a curse for idolatry and disobedience and God was gracious to give 40 years (a generation) before the consequence of the destruction.

I am still attempting to understand the link between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the temple 40 years later. But for now, I think it's important to see that there is no precedent to say that this "Prince" is anyone except the Messiah. So then, not only do we have a "he" in verse 27 upon which we base the end time model, but I also see no reason to believe that this "prince" is the antichrist anyway. It seems to me that the "he" refers to the Messiah either way. Not understanding the link/theology between the Messiah being cut off and the gap until the temple was destroyed does not seem to me to be a good reason to decide the "he" is the antichrist prince.
Daniel 9:24:
ESV: “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Daniel 9:25:
ESV: Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
NASB: "So you are to know and discern [that] from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince [there will be] seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
KJV: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
“Know therefore”: the purpose of the 70 weeks is given in verse 24, and then verse 25 begins with “therefore”. The purpose of the 70 weeks in verse 24 is to atone for iniquity and finish transgression... therefore God will send the Messiah. We see in looking at these 3 versions that the Messiah is the PRINCE who is to come. ESV calls him “the anointed one, a prince.” NASB and KJV call him “Messiah the Prince”. “Prince” is Strong’s 5057 as you can see here. The coming of Messiah the Prince is at week 69.

Daniel 9:26:
ESV: And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
NASB: “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
KJV: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
After the 62 (which is 69 since the 7 came first), but before the 63 (70), the Messiah will be cut off. “Cut off” means put to death. So somewhere in the 69th week is the death of the Messiah. We saw in verse 25 that the Messiah will come at week 69, and then verse 26 says He will be cut off after the 69th week. Since a week is 7 years, this fits perfectly with the ministry of Jesus until the time of His death if this “cut off” should occur in the middle of the week.
The people of the prince who is to come:
Why do we decide this is talking about the antichrist? The same word (Strong’s 5057- see here) is used here that is used in verse 25- only one verse prior. In verse 25, the prince is the Messiah. I see no reason to assume the prince here is different from the Prince in verse 25. Why would we call the antichrist a prince anyway?
So... would it make sense here to say that the prince is still the Messiah in this verse? I think it does. “The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” If the prince is the Messiah, who are these people? The people of the Messiah are the Jews. So now we read, “The Jews will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The city is Jerusalem and the sanctuary can be read either as the literal temple or perhaps as Jesus Himself (John 2:19). We know that the Jews did kill Jesus, so if we read Him as being the temple, that is true. Is it true that the Jews destroyed the city (and the sanctuary if sanctuary does not mean Jesus)? We know that the city was destroyed in 70AD, which would come approximately 40 years after the baptism of Jesus. Did the Jews do this though? This is what I need to understand better, but if this is about the Mosaic covenant, then the exile and destruction could well have been a curse for idolatry and disobedience and God was gracious to give 40 years (a generation) before the consequence of the destruction.

I am still attempting to understand the link between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the temple 40 years later. But for now, I think it's important to see that there is no precedent to say that this "Prince" is anyone except the Messiah. So then, not only do we have a "he" in verse 27 upon which we base the end time model, but I also see no reason to believe that this "prince" is the antichrist anyway. It seems to me that the "he" refers to the Messiah either way. Not understanding the link/theology between the Messiah being cut off and the gap until the temple was destroyed does not seem to me to be a good reason to decide the "he" is the antichrist prince.
