70th Week and Day of the Lord are separate events.

[rwb]

The latter portions of Daniel 9:26,27 were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Hi Covenantee, How does that fit with Daniel's prophesy regarding "three score and two weeks" that must be included within the 490 years for the prophesy to be fulfilled as Daniel has written? Daniel puts "Messiah be cut off" with the destruction of the city and temple.

Daniel 9:26 (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.

 

[rwb]

I have no idea! I have attempted to interpret Daniel along with the other many verses in other books the best I can. But thank you for all of your comments and thoughts.

Thanks Charlie, I understand. I asked because you are placing part of Daniel's prophesy in 70 AD???

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hi Covenantee, How does that fit with Daniel's prophesy regarding "three score and two weeks" that must be included within the 490 years for the prophesy to be fulfilled as Daniel has written? Daniel puts "Messiah be cut off" with the destruction of the city and temple.

Daniel 9:26 (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.

What the prophecy specifically indicates had to be fulfilled by the end of the 70 weeks were the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 and the confirming of the covenant, which we know Jesus did by confirming the new covenant, during the 70th week. That's it. You are reading things into the text that aren't there. Nothing says that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary had to occur before the end of the 70th week.

 

[rwb]

The reason the destruction of the city and temple of Daniel's prophesy cannot be from the Roman Army in 70 AD is because the city and temple did not end with "a flood". If one argues for physical fulfillment in 70 AD, be consistent. If the destruction is physical, then the flood would also be literal.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The reason the destruction of the city and temple of Daniel's prophesy cannot be from the Roman Army in 70 AD is because the city and temple did not end with "a flood". If one argues for physical fulfillment in 70 AD, be consistent. If the destruction is physical, then the flood would also be literal.

There is more than one definition of the word "flood". It does not have to refer to a literal flood caused by water, if that's what you're thinking. For example, a 911 operator can be said to receive a flood of phone calls after a mass casualty event occurs. The destruction of Jerusalem came after a flood of Roman soldiers surrounded the city and then proceeded to destroy it.

The Hebrew word translated as "flood" in Daniel 9:26 is šeṭep̄ (Strong's H7858) and it's also used in Daniel 11:22.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

This is not talking about a literal flood of water, but rather is speaking of a flood in relation to people being destroyed physically by a flood of the soldiers of the "vile person".

 

[CTK]

I realize I'm very late to the discussion, so forgive me Charlie for raising this question late.

I'm in complete agreement with how you prove "He" speaks of the coming Messiah in Dan 9. I also agree that all that Daniel writes concerning "He" was fulfilled when Christ came to earth a man. I'm wondering since all that was written concerning Christ was fulfilled by Christ, how can you say "the people of the prince that shall come" is the Roman Army that came 30-40 years later?

Daniel 9:26 (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.

The people of the prince are the apostate Jews, who spiritually destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple with a flood; that is an overflowing deluge through spiritual fornication and total apostasy. The destruction by the Roman Army was not "with a flood." Their; the Jewish people's prince who was to come is also "He"; Christ, the Messiah. With this understanding there is no thirty-to-forty-year delay/gap for the prophesy of Daniel to be fulfilled. All must be fulfilled within the timeframe set by the prophetic words of Daniel.

The following discussion should be considered in connection with the phrase “and the people of the prince who is to come,” found in the Daniel 9:26 section of the commentary.


Part 1.

And the people of the prince who is to come

This brief yet weighty phrase— “the people of the prince who is to come”—has sparked intense debate and diverging interpretations for centuries.

The identity of this mysterious “prince” has become one of the most contested topics in all of eschatology. Much hinges on how one interprets not only who this prince is, but also when he comes and which people belong to him. Broadly speaking, interpreters tend to link this phrase to one of three historical or prophetic contexts, each tied to a specific Temple era:

One view identifies the “people” as the Roman legions who destroyed Jerusalem under the command of General Titus. In this interpretation, Titus is the “prince who is to come,” and the prophecy is seen as fulfilled after the death and resurrection of Jesus in 70 AD.

Some scholars connect the prophecy to the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the second Temple during the intertestamental period. In this view, the “prince” refers to a foreign oppressor or local antagonist who attacked the city and Sanctuary during the tumultuous years after the Babylonian exile. However, this interpretation does not align with the seventy-weeks’ timeline or the appearance of the Messiah and thus creates inconsistencies with the prophecy’s structure.

The most widely held view in modern dispensationalist circles projects this prophecy into the future, assigning it to a rebuilt third Temple in Jerusalem. Here, the “prince” is often understood to be this mythical antichrist, who will supposedly make a covenant with Israel, break it mid-week, and then desecrate the Temple, initiating a terrible tribulation period. In this model, the “people” are his followers or military forces, expected to carry out destruction during the end times. This third view, though popular, requires a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks—disrupting the prophetic sequence and detaching the passage from the context of Christ's first coming. Moreover, it relies on speculation about a future Temple not mentioned in Daniel 9, and inserts into the text a future figure that Gabriel never names. This is the product of the futurist interpretation authored by the Jesuit priest, Ribera.

Many interpretations of Daniel 9:26 begin by choosing a Temple and a time period, then assigning an identity to “a prince,” and finally deciding who “his people” must be. But is that the best method?

What if there is a more faithful path—one that begins not with external speculation, but with the inspired structure of the chapter itself? Daniel 9 gives us internal clues. Across the chapter there are five occurrences across four reference-types involving “prince” language (and one crucial moment where the title is deliberately withheld). If we follow how Daniel and Gabriel use these terms—and pay attention to the subtle shifts between the restorative and destructive verses—we can approach the identity of “the prince who is to come” with greater textual discipline, rather than beginning with military history or end-time theories.

1) Generic “Princes” — Daniel 9:6 and 9:8​

The first two references appear in Daniel’s confession:

“neither have we heeded your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings and our princes…” (v.6)​

​

“o lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers…” (v.8)​

These are generic references to Israel’s leaders who failed to listen to God’s prophets. Importantly, the prophetic title nagiyd is not used here. Daniel is not identifying a foretold figure; he is confessing the guilt of Israel’s historical leadership.

2) “Messiah the Prince” — Daniel 9:25​

Then the prophecy turns, and a different kind of “prince” appears:

“until messiah the prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks…” (v.25)​

Here “Messiah” is joined to “Prince,” and the Hebrew title nagiyd is used. This is no ordinary ruler. This is a divinely appointed figure—the Anointed One. In the restorative verse, Gabriel speaks with clarity and honor: Jerusalem is named, and the Messiah is presented with a royal title. The city is identified. The Messiah is enthroned in the wording. The prophecy is moving toward restoration and arrival. The structure is deliberate: the first seven weeks highlight rebuilding and restoration; the sixty-two that follow carry Israel forward in expectation until the arrival of the Messiah at the appointed time.

3) “Messiah” (title withheld) — Daniel 9:26​

Immediately after the restorative verse comes the first destructive line:

“after the sixty-two weeks, messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.” (v.26)​

Notice what changes. The word “Prince” is not repeated. Gabriel does not say, “Messiah the Prince shall be cut off.” He says simply, “Messiah.” The identity remains the same person as verse 25, but the presentation shifts. The prophecy moves from arrival to sacrifice; from royal emphasis to substitutionary death. The crown-language fades, and the cross-language dominates.

This appears intentional. In verse 25, the Messiah is described in His royal role—as the appointed Prince arriving to fulfill God’s plan. In verse 26, He is portrayed not as the enthroned Prince, but as the sacrificial Lamb—cut off for others, not for Himself. The title of rule is withheld as though the prophecy itself is showing what the gospel will later reveal: the Prince lays down His crown to take up the cross.

At the same time, the place-names shift. In verse 25, Gabriel says “Jerusalem.” In verse 26, the city is no longer named; it becomes simply “the city” and “the sanctuary.” Proper names and honor-titles withdraw. The tone turns judicial. This mirrors the grief-filled transition we see in the Gospels. Jesus cleanses the Temple and calls it “My house” (Matthew 21:12–13). Later, after rejection, He says, “Behold, your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). That shift—my house to your house—is not semantic. It is judicial. It marks the withdrawal of recognized ownership and presence because of national rejection. Daniel 9:26 carries a similar weight: the vocabulary tightens, the names fade, and the prophecy speaks in the language of consequence.

 

[CTK]

I agree Covenantee! How do you reconcile placing a gap of 30-40 years between the crucifixion and the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD? If all seventy weeks (490 years) must be fulfilled, and in fact were fulfilled, wouldn't you agree that when the vail of the temple was torn from top to bottom fulfilled all?

The prophesy had been speaking of Messiah the Prince who was to come. I believe Daniel is still speaking of the same Messiah after saying He would be cut off, Daniel still speaks of Messiah the same Prince when he writes "the people of the prince (Messiah) that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary". The city and temple had become an abomination unto God just as Daniel foretells. Therefore, the city and temple ceased to be holy from the moment the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom. The final abomination committed by the people (apostate Jews) of the Messiah (His kinsmen according to flesh) who was to come set the clock for utter destruction that would be thirty to forty years after the cross and not part of the prophetic words of Daniel for all that would come to pass 490 years later.

Daniel 9:26 (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.

Part 2.

4) “The People of the Prince Who Is to Come” — Daniel 9:26
Now we reach the controversial phrase:

“the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…” (v.26)​

This is the only other place in Daniel 9 where the Hebrew title nagiyd appears besides verse 25. But now “Messiah” is absent. That combination matters. It signals that this figure is neither the generic “princes” of Daniel’s prayer (v.6, v.8) nor the titled “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25.

He is a distinct nagiyd—a coming ruler connected to the people who bring destruction. And here is the key nuance: God could have used a common, generic word for ruler here, as Daniel did earlier in his prayer. But He does not. He uses the elevated, purpose-weighted term nagiyd again—without granting the identifying title “Messiah.”

The effect is deliberate. It marks this “prince” as more than a mere military administrator, yet also exposes him as something other than the true Anointed One. He is presented as a counterfeit-prince — a figure who will rise clothed in sacred authority, imitating the posture of divine leadership while lacking the divine identity that belongs to Christ alone. By assigning him the elevated title nagiyd without pairing it with “Messiah,” the text subtly signals that this ruler will not merely govern politically, but will assume a role that encroaches upon divine prerogative. He will not deny God outright; he will claim to represent Him. He will not reject sacred authority; he will assert that he embodies it.

In this way, the wording anticipates a ruler who positions himself as the visible head of God’s people on earth — speaking in God’s name, defining doctrine, mediating forgiveness, and exercising authority over conscience as though heaven itself had vested him with Christ’s office. The absence of the title “Messiah” is therefore not accidental. It is protective. God withholds the true Anointed designation while still using the royal term nagiyd to expose the dangerous resemblance. This prince will present himself as Christ’s earthly stand-in — even as he rises in opposition to the true Prince of princes. The text does not call him Messiah because he is not the Anointed One — but it calls him nagiyd because he will claim a place that looks strikingly similar.

Historically, many identify this with Titus and the Roman forces who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. As a surface-level fulfillment, the fit is strong: Rome is the destroying “people,” and Titus stands as the associated ruler. Daniel does show that God uses foreign powers as instruments of judgment—Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and others—so the idea of Rome serving this role is not foreign to Daniel’s pattern. But the verse is phrased carefully. It does not say the prince destroys the city; it says his people do. The destruction is attributed first to the people, and the prince is described as “to come.” That wording allows the prince to be tied to the Roman world and its legacy without requiring him to be the field commander in the moment of destruction.

It can point to a ruler who emerges from that same people after the devastation—a later authority arising from the aftermath.

This opens the door to a deeper prophetic layer that aligns with Daniel’s visions. Rome’s people destroy the city and the sanctuary, and out of the Roman world—after Jerusalem’s fall and after pagan Rome’s eventual collapse—another power rises. In Daniel’s language elsewhere, this is the trajectory of the little horn: a deceptive, blasphemous force that emerges from the Roman sphere, takes on a religious-political identity, and stands in opposition to the true Prince of princes (Daniel 8:25). In that reading, Daniel’s post-cross arc unfolds in three movements:

Rome’s people destroy the city and the sanctuary (the historical devastation).​

​

The prince who is to come rises later from among them—the little horn emerging from Rome’s legacy.​

​

He rules over that legacy—not mainly by military conquest, but by spiritual authority, claiming Christ’s place while opposing Christ’s truth.​

So the language of Daniel 9:25–26 is not incidental. Names and titles appear in restoration; they withdraw in judgment. The Messiah is introduced as Prince; He is cut off as sacrifice. And then another nagiyd appears—untitled, ambiguous, “to come”—linked to the destroying people and pointing forward to the long arc of counterfeit power Daniel had unveiled in chapters 7 and 8.

In this way, the text itself guides the reader. It does not require us to begin with speculation. It invites us to watch what Heaven emphasizes, what Heaven withholds, and how the prophecy’s own structure distinguishes the Messiah from the prince who follows—so we can identify “the prince who is to come,” and understand just who “his people” are, in both the historical and prophetic layers Daniel is presenting.

 

[CTK]

The reason the destruction of the city and temple of Daniel's prophesy cannot be from the Roman Army in 70 AD is because the city and temple did not end with "a flood". If one argues for physical fulfillment in 70 AD, be consistent. If the destruction is physical, then the flood would also be literal.

Please see my response in #'s 246 & 247.

 

[CTK]

The reason the destruction of the city and temple of Daniel's prophesy cannot be from the Roman Army in 70 AD is because the city and temple did not end with "a flood". If one argues for physical fulfillment in 70 AD, be consistent. If the destruction is physical, then the flood would also be literal.

The following discussion should be considered in connection with the phrase “the end of it shall be with a flood” found in the Daniel 9:26 section of the commentary.

The end of it shall be with a flood

This phrase carries forward the judgment announced in the previous line. In its historical outworking, it points to the devastation of Jerusalem and the sanctuary in 70 AD, when Roman forces under Titus swept through the city and brought the Second Temple era to its violent close.

The imagery is deliberate: “the end shall be with a flood” does not describe literal water, but an overwhelming, unstoppable surge—sudden, total, and irreversible. Like a flood that breaks through every barrier, this judgment would not merely wound Jerusalem; it would sweep it away. Jesus Himself spoke of this coming finality as He departed the Temple for the last time. When His disciples admired the stones, He answered with chilling certainty:

​

“Do you not see all these things? … not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1–2)​

The point is not simply damage. It is dismantling. The sanctuary—the center of national worship and identity—would be taken down to its foundations. And unlike the Babylonian conquest, this would not be followed by a prophetic “seventy-year return” and a mandated rebuilding. Jesus’ words frame it as an end-state, not a pause. Luke records the same warning, but through tears. As Jesus approached the city:

“If you had known… the things which belong to your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes… because you didn’t know the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:41–44)​

The sorrow matters. This flood is not arbitrary violence; it is covenantal consequence. Jerusalem’s judgment is bound to the tragedy of missed grace—the rejection of the Messiah, the very Prince who came to save. And the flood-image also signals something else: the sweeping away of a shadow once the reality has arrived. Babylon’s conquest came with a redemptive arc: God promised a return, restored the city, and rebuilt the Temple within the prophetic framework that led to the Messiah’s appearing. But after the Messiah’s arrival—and especially after His rejection—the purpose of the earthly sanctuary had reached its fulfillment. The sanctuary’s mission was never to be an end in itself. It was a prophetic instrument. Its sacrifices pointed to the Lamb. Its priesthood pointed to the true High Priest. Its Most Holy Place foreshadowed the heavenly sanctuary into which Christ entered “once for all” (Hebrews 9:11–12).

So when Jesus cried, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He did not merely end His suffering—He completed the sanctuary’s meaning. The flood of 70 AD, then, becomes more than a military catastrophe. It becomes a visible, historical punctuation mark: the shadow has served its purpose, the true atonement has been offered, and the old order—still clung to after its fulfillment—is swept away.

 

[CTK]

Thanks Charlie, I understand. I asked because you are placing part of Daniel's prophesy in 70 AD???

It appears to be a meaningful forty-year span between the cross of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

After Israel’s leaders rejected the Messiah and delivered Him to be crucified, God did not immediately bring judgment upon the city or the temple. Instead, in mercy, He allowed a period of time in which the gospel would be preached first in Jerusalem, then in Judea, Samaria, and beyond. The apostles bore witness that Jesus was the crucified and risen Messiah. Thousands of Jews believed. The message continued to go forth. The invitation to repent remained open.

This period lasted forty years.

That is significant because the number forty often appears in Scripture as a period of testing, trial, proving, or transition. Israel was tested forty years in the wilderness. Moses was forty days on Sinai. Elijah journeyed forty days to Horeb. Jesus fasted forty days in the wilderness before being tempted. In each case, forty marks a season of testing before judgment, transition, or divine movement forward.

In that light, the forty years between the cross and AD 70 may be understood as a final period of covenant testing for Jerusalem. The Messiah had come. Daniel’s seventy weeks had reached their appointed purpose. The sacrifice of Christ had fulfilled what the temple system pointed toward. The apostles proclaimed repentance and forgiveness in His name. Yet the city and its leadership continued in unbelief and opposition.

So the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was not sudden or without warning. Jesus had wept over the city. He had warned that its house would be left desolate. He had foretold the destruction of the temple. Then, after the cross, God still allowed a generation of witness before that judgment came.

This does not mean every Jew rejected Christ. Many Jews received Him. The earliest believers were Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The church began in Jerusalem. But as a covenant center, Jerusalem was given time to respond to the Messiah whom it had rejected.

Therefore, the forty-year span from the cross to AD 70 can be seen as a final merciful testing period. It was a generation of grace before judgment, a time in which God bore witness through the apostles that Jesus was the Messiah. When that witness was resisted, the temple and city that had rejected Him were finally left desolate.

In this way, the forty years after the cross fit the larger biblical pattern: God tests, warns, delays judgment in mercy, and gives opportunity to repent before bringing a decisive transition.

 

[rwb]

It appears to be a meaningful forty-year span between the cross of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

After Israel’s leaders rejected the Messiah and delivered Him to be crucified, God did not immediately bring judgment upon the city or the temple. Instead, in mercy, He allowed a period of time in which the gospel would be preached first in Jerusalem, then in Judea, Samaria, and beyond. The apostles bore witness that Jesus was the crucified and risen Messiah. Thousands of Jews believed. The message continued to go forth. The invitation to repent remained open.

Charlie, I'm attempting to work backwards in reply to your posts. I don't believe the Bible confirms the belief that God gave a meaningful forty-year span between the cross and the destruction to allow a period of time in which the gospel would first be preached in Jerusalem. According to what is written of Paul we learn that the gospel had been preached unto all the then known world before he died in around 64-68 AD. Paul and Barnabas say the gospel had already been offered to the Jews first, but since they rejected Christ, they turned to the Gentiles with the gospel.

Colossians 1:5-6 (KJV) For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Colossians 1:23 (KJV) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Romans 1:8 (KJV) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Ro 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Ro 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Ro 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Ro 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

1 Thessalonians 1:8 (KJV) For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

Acts 13:46-48 (KJV) Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

I don't believe God gave the apostate nation 40 more years to turn to Christ after the crucifixion. That would be odd sense before the cross Christ had already pronounced, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Also, we need to remember the gospel had been known to the nation of Israel through the Law and Prophets, which in why in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, when the rich man asks that Lazarus be sent back to witness to his father's house, Abraham said:

Lu 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Lu 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Lu 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Matthew 23:37-38 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Will try to address your other replies later tonight or maybe tomorrow. Have much going on at this time. Many Blessings Charlie.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Charlie, I'm attempting to work backwards in reply to your posts. I don't believe the Bible confirms the belief that God gave a meaningful forty-year span between the cross and the destruction to allow a period of time in which the gospel would first be preached in Jerusalem. According to what is written of Paul we learn that the gospel had been preached unto all the then known world before he died in around 64-68 AD. Paul and Barnabas say the gospel had already been offered to the Jews first, but since they rejected Christ, they turned to the Gentiles with the gospel.

Colossians 1:5-6 (KJV) For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Colossians 1:23 (KJV) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Romans 1:8 (KJV) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Ro 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Ro 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Ro 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Ro 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

1 Thessalonians 1:8 (KJV) For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

Acts 13:46-48 (KJV) Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

I don't believe God gave the apostate nation 40 more years to turn to Christ after the crucifixion. That would be odd sense before the cross Christ had already pronounced, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Also, we need to remember the gospel had been known to the nation of Israel through the Law and Prophets, which in why in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, when the rich man asks that Lazarus be sent back to witness to his father's house, Abraham said:

Lu 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Lu 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Lu 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Matthew 23:37-38 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Will try to address your other replies later tonight or maybe tomorrow. Have much going on at this time. Many Blessings Charlie.

Why do you think that Jerusalem and its temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD? Do you think that God had nothing to do with that?

What is your understanding of what Jesus said here...

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Who is the king in this parable and who is the king's son? This should be easy. But, the next question is who are the servants who called "those who were invited to the wedding" and who were the ones who rejected the invitation? The final question is what do you think verse 7 is about?

 

[William Barton]

Covenantee noted:

<A testament is a will>

True, under modern law. I was referring to the etymology, and to the Biblical use of the term, as in Hebrews chapter 9.

 

[rwb]

Part 2.

4) “The People of the Prince Who Is to Come” — Daniel 9:26
Now we reach the controversial phrase:

“the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…” (v.26)​

This is the only other place in Daniel 9 where the Hebrew title nagiyd appears besides verse 25. But now “Messiah” is absent. That combination matters. It signals that this figure is neither the generic “princes” of Daniel’s prayer (v.6, v.8) nor the titled “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25.

He is a distinct nagiyd—a coming ruler connected to the people who bring destruction. And here is the key nuance: God could have used a common, generic word for ruler here, as Daniel did earlier in his prayer. But He does not. He uses the elevated, purpose-weighted term nagiyd again—without granting the identifying title “Messiah.”

The effect is deliberate. It marks this “prince” as more than a mere military administrator, yet also exposes him as something other than the true Anointed One. He is presented as a counterfeit-prince — a figure who will rise clothed in sacred authority, imitating the posture of divine leadership while lacking the divine identity that belongs to Christ alone. By assigning him the elevated title nagiyd without pairing it with “Messiah,” the text subtly signals that this ruler will not merely govern politically, but will assume a role that encroaches upon divine prerogative. He will not deny God outright; he will claim to represent Him. He will not reject sacred authority; he will assert that he embodies it.

In this way, the wording anticipates a ruler who positions himself as the visible head of God’s people on earth — speaking in God’s name, defining doctrine, mediating forgiveness, and exercising authority over conscience as though heaven itself had vested him with Christ’s office. The absence of the title “Messiah” is therefore not accidental. It is protective. God withholds the true Anointed designation while still using the royal term nagiyd to expose the dangerous resemblance. This prince will present himself as Christ’s earthly stand-in — even as he rises in opposition to the true Prince of princes. The text does not call him Messiah because he is not the Anointed One — but it calls him nagiyd because he will claim a place that looks strikingly similar.

Historically, many identify this with Titus and the Roman forces who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. As a surface-level fulfillment, the fit is strong: Rome is the destroying “people,” and Titus stands as the associated ruler. Daniel does show that God uses foreign powers as instruments of judgment—Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and others—so the idea of Rome serving this role is not foreign to Daniel’s pattern. But the verse is phrased carefully. It does not say the prince destroys the city; it says his people do. The destruction is attributed first to the people, and the prince is described as “to come.” That wording allows the prince to be tied to the Roman world and its legacy without requiring him to be the field commander in the moment of destruction.

It can point to a ruler who emerges from that same people after the devastation—a later authority arising from the aftermath.

This opens the door to a deeper prophetic layer that aligns with Daniel’s visions. Rome’s people destroy the city and the sanctuary, and out of the Roman world—after Jerusalem’s fall and after pagan Rome’s eventual collapse—another power rises. In Daniel’s language elsewhere, this is the trajectory of the little horn: a deceptive, blasphemous force that emerges from the Roman sphere, takes on a religious-political identity, and stands in opposition to the true Prince of princes (Daniel 8:25). In that reading, Daniel’s post-cross arc unfolds in three movements:

Rome’s people destroy the city and the sanctuary (the historical devastation).​

​

The prince who is to come rises later from among them—the little horn emerging from Rome’s legacy.​

​

He rules over that legacy—not mainly by military conquest, but by spiritual authority, claiming Christ’s place while opposing Christ’s truth.​

So the language of Daniel 9:25–26 is not incidental. Names and titles appear in restoration; they withdraw in judgment. The Messiah is introduced as Prince; He is cut off as sacrifice. And then another nagiyd appears—untitled, ambiguous, “to come”—linked to the destroying people and pointing forward to the long arc of counterfeit power Daniel had unveiled in chapters 7 and 8.

In this way, the text itself guides the reader. It does not require us to begin with speculation. It invites us to watch what Heaven emphasizes, what Heaven withholds, and how the prophecy’s own structure distinguishes the Messiah from the prince who follows—so we can identify “the prince who is to come,” and understand just who “his people” are, in both the historical and prophetic layers Daniel is presenting.

Charlie, I don't find any reason in the prophesy to assume "the people of the prince that shall come" is not the same Messiah the Prince of vs 25. How can this 'prince' be any other than Messiah the Prince! Because it is this prince of the people that shall come that shall confirm (make stronger) the New Covenant (the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world) with many for one week, and be cut off by the cross in the midst of the week, and He shall cause sacrifice and the oblation to cease by making Himself (shedding of blood) the sacrifice for sins. The New Covenant isn't altogether new, it's that same Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but in Christ the Covenant is better because the blood of Christ cleanses once and forever all who are born again. Are you aware of any verses in the Bible to prove an unknown non-Jewish prince confirmed what covenant? When I researched covenant (bᵉrîyth) the Bible overwhelmingly speaks of the covenants God made with Israel, but I didn't find Scripture to support 70 AD.

Da 9:26 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.
Da 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe it is the apostate people (kinsmen according to blood) that Daniel had earnestly prayed for who are the people of the prince that shall come. First Daniel hears that his heartfelt prayer shall be answered. The city and temple shall be re-built, the Law & Prophets reinstated, Israel will once again be the holy people unto God. After learning the good news, Daniel next hears how the Jewish people will once again forsake God just as his own people of his day had, and that will once again be the cause of the destruction of the city and sanctuary. The Jewish nation's promises to God that they would worship and obey Him, would not last. This will once again bring a flood (deluge; overflowing) of sin and evil that would once again make them an abomination unto God and the cause of the city and temple being utterly destroyed.

 

[rwb]

The sorrow matters. This flood is not arbitrary violence; it is covenantal consequence. Jerusalem’s judgment is bound to the tragedy of missed grace—the rejection of the Messiah, the very Prince who came to save. And the flood-image also signals something else: the sweeping away of a shadow once the reality has arrived. Babylon’s conquest came with a redemptive arc: God promised a return, restored the city, and rebuilt the Temple within the prophetic framework that led to the Messiah’s appearing. But after the Messiah’s arrival—and especially after His rejection—the purpose of the earthly sanctuary had reached its fulfillment. The sanctuary’s mission was never to be an end in itself. It was a prophetic instrument. Its sacrifices pointed to the Lamb. Its priesthood pointed to the true High Priest. Its Most Holy Place foreshadowed the heavenly sanctuary into which Christ entered “once for all” (Hebrews 9:11–12).

So when Jesus cried, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He did not merely end His suffering—He completed the sanctuary’s meaning. The flood of 70 AD, then, becomes more than a military catastrophe. It becomes a visible, historical punctuation mark: the shadow has served its purpose, the true atonement has been offered, and the old order—still clung to after its fulfillment—is swept away.

It appears to be a meaningful forty-year span between the cross of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

I agree the flood indeed had consequential repercussions. It was the flood itself, which, as I said was an overflowing of abomination from the apostate Jews, that led to the utter destruction, just as abomination of the people led to the destruction in the days of Daniel. I believe this is why Christ tells His disciples when they understand, have knowledge, see for themselves the city and temple are no longer holy unto God, then they should flee to the mountains. Christ did not intend for His disciples to hang around in Judaea or Jerusalem for another forty years then flee to the mountains when they would know the destruction of the city and temple was imminent.

The Bible does not tell us why God held back the army of Rome for another forty years. I will venture to guess it has something to do with the sins of the Jewish people coming to its full measure. Or it could be there were still Jews and Gentiles within the city in its last days who were ordained to eternal life through Christ, who must live to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ proclaimed.

Amos 1:13 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:

In this passage, the prophet Amos delivers a divine judgment on the Ammonites, descendants of Lot, for their repeated sins. The phrase “for three transgressions… even for four” is a poetic way of emphasizing that their offenses have reached a fullness or completeness, meaning God’s patience has run out. The specific act described—ripping open pregnant women in Gilead to expand their territory—illustrates extreme cruelty and a disregard for human life, which God condemns. God takes sin seriously, especially acts of violence and cruelty. The phrase "for three transgressions, even for four" emphasizes the accumulation of sin leading to inevitable judgment.

Genesis 15:16 (KJV) But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

 

[covenantee]

Covenantee noted:

<A testament is a will>

True, under modern law. I was referring to the etymology, and to the Biblical use of the term, as in Hebrews chapter 9.

I cited the Greek, which as shown means "will".

 

[CTK]

Charlie, I don't find any reason in the prophesy to assume "the people of the prince that shall come" is not the same Messiah the Prince of vs 25. How can this 'prince' be any other than Messiah the Prince! Because it is this prince of the people that shall come that shall confirm (make stronger) the New Covenant (the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world) with many for one week, and be cut off by the cross in the midst of the week, and He shall cause sacrifice and the oblation to cease by making Himself (shedding of blood) the sacrifice for sins. The New Covenant isn't altogether new, it's that same Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but in Christ the Covenant is better because the blood of Christ cleanses once and forever all who are born again. Are you aware of any verses in the Bible to prove an unknown non-Jewish prince confirmed what covenant? When I researched covenant (bᵉrîyth) the Bible overwhelmingly speaks of the covenants God made with Israel, but I didn't find Scripture to support 70 AD.

Da 9:26 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.
Da 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe it is the apostate people (kinsmen according to blood) that Daniel had earnestly prayed for who are the people of the prince that shall come. First Daniel hears that his heartfelt prayer shall be answered. The city and temple shall be re-built, the Law & Prophets reinstated, Israel will once again be the holy people unto God. After learning the good news, Daniel next hears how the Jewish people will once again forsake God just as his own people of his day had, and that will once again be the cause of the destruction of the city and sanctuary. The Jewish nation's promises to God that they would worship and obey Him, would not last. This will once again bring a flood (deluge; overflowing) of sin and evil that would once again make them an abomination unto God and the cause of the city and temple being utterly destroyed.

The phrase “the people of the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 gives us both an historical event and a prophetic identity.

Daniel is told that after Messiah is cut off, “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The order is important. First, Messiah is cut off. Then the city and sanctuary are destroyed. Historically, that destruction occurred in AD 70 through the Roman armies under Titus. This means the “people” who destroy the city and sanctuary cannot simply be identified as the Jewish people who rejected Messiah. The Jewish rejection of Christ was certainly the covenant cause of the desolation. Jesus Himself said, “Your house is left unto you desolate.” But the actual historical instrument that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple was Rome. Therefore, the Jewish people were the cause in a covenantal and spiritual sense, but Rome was the instrument in a historical and military sense.

This distinction is important. Daniel 9:26 does not say, “the prince shall destroy the city and sanctuary.” It says “the people of the prince who is to come” will do so. The destroying people appear first; the prince connected with them is described as one who is yet “to come.” Therefore, the verse points to a people identifiable at the destruction of AD 70, while also pointing forward to a coming prince associated with that same Roman people.

If the people who destroyed the city were Roman, then the coming prince must arise from the Roman sphere. He does not arise from Israel. He does not come before the destruction. He is connected with the Roman people who destroyed the sanctuary, but he himself is described as still to come.

This also explains why Daniel 9:26 does not call him “Messiah the Prince,” as verse 25 does. In Daniel 9:25, the title is “Messiah the Prince.” But in verse 26, the text speaks only of “the prince who is to come.” He is given the title of prince, but not the title of Messiah. That distinction should not be overlooked.

In this reading, Daniel is revealing a contrast. Messiah the Prince comes and is cut off. But after Messiah is rejected and the city is destroyed by the Roman people, another prince will later arise from the Roman world — one who claims religious authority, assumes a princely role, and seeks to occupy a place that belongs only to Christ. This points naturally to the little horn power of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8.

Pagan Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Later, pagan Rome itself would fall in AD 476. But the Roman world did not simply disappear. Out of the fractured Roman order, another power arose — not a pagan emperor in the old form, but a religious-political power that would claim authority within the visible church. This is the little horn: the power that arises after pagan Rome, speaks great things, persecutes the saints, casts truth down, and attempts to rule in the place of Christ.

Thus, “the prince who is to come” is not Messiah. Messiah has already been identified in verse 25 and cut off in verse 26. Nor is this prince necessary to make Daniel 9:27 about an end-time Antichrist covenant. Rather, he is introduced in verse 26 because the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman people becomes the prophetic marker identifying the sphere from which the later little horn prince will arise.
The sequence is therefore coherent:

Messiah the Prince comes.
Messiah is cut off.
Jerusalem rejects Him.
A forty-year generation of apostolic witness follows.
The city and sanctuary are destroyed by the Roman people in AD 70.
The Roman sphere continues.
Pagan Rome later falls.
From the Roman world arises the little horn — the coming prince who assumes authority within the church and stands in opposition to the true Prince.​

This preserves the Messianic meaning of Daniel 9:27. The “he” who confirms the covenant with many is Messiah, not the coming Roman prince. Christ confirms the covenant through His blood, and in the midst of the week He causes sacrifice and offering to cease by fulfilling them in His once-for-all sacrifice.

But Daniel 9:26 still looks beyond the cross and beyond AD 70. It identifies the Roman people as the destroyers of the city and sanctuary, and it signals that from that Roman world a later prince would come — not Messiah the Prince, but a counterfeit prince, the little horn power that would arise after the establishment and growth of Christ’s church.

In this way, Daniel 9:26 connects the rejection of Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the later rise of the Roman little horn. The Jews’ rejection brought the covenant desolation; Rome carried out the historical destruction; and the coming prince from the Roman world would later become the great opposing power within the Christian era. And although these responses do not discuss the detailedint interpretations of Chapters 7 and 8, this interpretation of 9:26 is entirely consistent with those two chapters.

 

[CTK]

I agree the flood indeed had consequential repercussions. It was the flood itself, which, as I said was an overflowing of abomination from the apostate Jews, that led to the utter destruction, just as abomination of the people led to the destruction in the days of Daniel. I believe this is why Christ tells His disciples when they understand, have knowledge, see for themselves the city and temple are no longer holy unto God, then they should flee to the mountains. Christ did not intend for His disciples to hang around in Judaea or Jerusalem for another forty years then flee to the mountains when they would know the destruction of the city and temple was imminent.

The Bible does not tell us why God held back the army of Rome for another forty years. I will venture to guess it has something to do with the sins of the Jewish people coming to its full measure. Or it could be there were still Jews and Gentiles within the city in its last days who were ordained to eternal life through Christ, who must live to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ proclaimed.

Amos 1:13 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:

In this passage, the prophet Amos delivers a divine judgment on the Ammonites, descendants of Lot, for their repeated sins. The phrase “for three transgressions… even for four” is a poetic way of emphasizing that their offenses have reached a fullness or completeness, meaning God’s patience has run out. The specific act described—ripping open pregnant women in Gilead to expand their territory—illustrates extreme cruelty and a disregard for human life, which God condemns. God takes sin seriously, especially acts of violence and cruelty. The phrase "for three transgressions, even for four" emphasizes the accumulation of sin leading to inevitable judgment.

Genesis 15:16 (KJV) But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

I agree that Scripture often shows God delaying judgment until sin reaches its full measure. Genesis 15:16 is a clear example: the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. Amos also shows that repeated transgression accumulates until judgment can no longer be delayed. So I do not reject that principle. But I think the forty-year span between the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem has a more specific biblical pattern attached to it. It is not merely that God delayed judgment until sin reached fullness. It is that the delay itself was roughly forty years, and forty is repeatedly used in Scripture as a period of testing, proving, trial, and transition.

Israel was tested forty years in the wilderness. Moses was forty days on Sinai. Elijah journeyed forty days to Horeb. Jesus was tested forty days in the wilderness. In those cases, forty is not merely a random delay before judgment. It marks a divinely significant period of testing.
That is why I believe the forty years from the cross to AD 70 are best understood in that pattern.

After Messiah was rejected and crucified, judgment was pronounced. Jesus had already said, “Your house is left unto you desolate.” Yet the visible destruction did not come immediately. Instead, roughly one generation passed. During that time, the apostles preached first in Jerusalem, the resurrection was proclaimed, thousands of Jews believed, Stephen testified, Paul preached, and the gospel went out to Jew and Gentile. This does not mean Israel had no previous witness. They had Moses and the prophets. It does not mean Christ had not already pronounced judgment. He had. But it does suggest that God allowed a final generation of testing, witness, and transition before the temple order was visibly removed.

The wilderness generation may provide an important parallel. Israel disobeyed God, and that unbelieving generation was not permitted to enter the land. They died in the wilderness over forty years, except Caleb and Joshua. Then the next generation crossed over. In a similar way, from the cross to AD 70, the generation that rejected Messiah witnessed the apostolic testimony and then saw the old temple order come to its end. Yet not all were lost. Just as Caleb and Joshua were preserved in the wilderness generation, many Jews believed in Christ during that forty-year period. The apostles themselves were Jews. The first believers were Jews. Thousands in Jerusalem received the word.
So I would not say the forty years were only about sin reaching full measure, though that may be included. I think the stronger pattern is that God gave a generation of testing and witness before a decisive transition.

There is no verse that explicitly says, “God gave Jerusalem forty years after the cross for this reason.” So I would not state it dogmatically. But when we see Christ’s judgment pronounced, followed by a forty-year span of apostolic witness, ending with the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70, the pattern is hard to ignore. Therefore, I would say the forty years between the cross and AD 70 appear to function as a final covenant generation — a period of testing, witness, mercy, and transition before the old temple system was removed.

 

[covenantee]

But Daniel 9:26 still looks beyond the cross and beyond AD 70. It identifies the Roman people as the destroyers of the city and sanctuary, and it signals that from that Roman world a later prince would come — not Messiah the Prince, but a counterfeit prince, the little horn power that would arise after the establishment and growth of Christ’s church.

I concur that the little horn refers to the apostate papacy. But where is/are the apostate papacy/popes ever referred to as (a) prince(s)?

All of the "he's" in Daniel 9:27 refer back to the prince in Daniel 9:26. When did the apostate papacy fulfill Daniel 9:27?

Messiah the Prince alone fulfilled Daniel 9:27.

 

[CTK]

I concur that the little horn refers to the apostate papacy. But where is/are the apostate papacy/popes ever referred to as (a) prince(s)?

All of the "he's" in Daniel 9:27 refer back to the prince in Daniel 9:26. When did the apostate papacy fulfill Daniel 9:27?

Messiah the Prince alone fulfilled Daniel 9:27.

I agree with you that Messiah the Prince alone fulfills Daniel 9:27.

I am not arguing that the apostate papacy fulfills Daniel 9:27. The one who confirms the covenant with many, and who causes sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the week, is Messiah. Christ confirms the covenant through His ministry and blood, and by His once-for-all sacrifice He brings the sacrificial system to its true fulfillment. So on Daniel 9:27, I agree with you.

Where I am making a distinction is in Daniel 9:26. Daniel 9:25 specifically identifies “Messiah the Prince.” Then verse 26 says Messiah is cut off, and after that “the people of the prince who is to come” destroy the city and sanctuary. The text does not say the prince destroys the city. It says his people do.

Historically, the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 were Roman. Therefore, the “people” are Roman. And if they are the people of a prince who is yet “to come,” then the prince is connected with the Roman sphere.

That does not make this prince the one who fulfills Daniel 9:27. It simply means Daniel 9:26 introduces another prince associated with the Roman people who destroy the city and sanctuary.

This is why I believe the language is significant. Verse 25 says “Messiah the Prince.” Verse 26 does not say “Messiah the Prince.” It says “the prince who is to come.” He is called a prince, but he is not called Messiah. That distinction matters.

So I would not say the papacy must be called “prince” elsewhere in order for this to work. Daniel itself often uses symbolic titles for powers. In Daniel 7, the little horn is not called “pope” or “papacy,” yet we both agree it points to the apostate papal power. Likewise, Daniel 9:26 may identify the Roman sphere from which a later opposing prince-like power arises without using the later historical title “pope.”

The point is not that Daniel 9:27 is fulfilled by the papacy. It is not. The point is that Daniel 9:26 connects the destruction of Jerusalem to the Roman people, and then signals that from that Roman world a later prince will come.

In that sense, Daniel 9:26 fits with Daniel 7 and Daniel 8. Pagan Rome destroys the city and sanctuary in AD 70. Pagan Rome later falls. Out of the Roman world arises the little horn power, which assumes religious authority, speaks great things, opposes the true Prince, and corrupts the visible church.

So I would separate the two points:

Daniel 9:26 identifies the Roman people who destroy the city and sanctuary and points to a coming prince from that Roman sphere.​

​

Daniel 9:27 speaks of Messiah confirming the covenant and bringing sacrifice and oblation to their true end through His death.​

The study on the use of the five terms found in chapter 9 for Messiah, Prince, prince, prince (ruler) was done to show how God would purposely identify the specific actors in chapter 9. It is a brilliant way of distinguishing each actor / type of prince in chapter 9. It eliminates any doubt who God is referring to.....