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

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Right. The pattern is clear. The prophecy first identifies the Messiah as the prince. After that it refers to the Messiah separately and the prince separately. The reason it doesn't say Messiah the prince each time is because that was unnecessary. The reference to the Messiah would be understand as referring to Messiah the prince and the reference to the prince should be understood that way as well.

Daniel 9:25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

What this says is clear when you understand this is all centers around Jesus. There would be 69 weeks (483 years) leading up to the revealing of Messiah the Prince. Then some time after that He would be cut off when confirming the new covenant with many during the 70th week which would cause the old covenant sacrifices and offerings to become obsolete. In the process He made the temple spiritually desolate while establishing the spiritual temple of God (the church) with Himself being the cornerstone. The people of Messiah the prince would be responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. Jesus said He was a Jew and the Jewish people, for the most part, rejected Him and that is why their city and sanctuary were physically destroyed and made desolate, which was the consummation that was poured out on them in 70 AD.

 

[rwb]

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.

Charlie, do you realize this makes an assumption without biblical authority to do so? The city and temple had become desolate before Messiah came. Daniel is only saying the people of the prince that shall come are the ones who make desolate the city and sanctuary, but he does not say the desolation comes AFTER the prince shall come, or by the people of this unknown prince.

You're reading this as though Daniel says, "Messiah shall be cut off, and after that the people of an unknown prince shall come and destroy the city and sanctuary".

The passage shows only that Messiah was not cut off for Himself, but for the sins of His people. Again, there is no biblical authority to read fulfilled history into the text.

Daniel 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."

Messiah was cut off for the sins of 'His People!'

Isaiah 53:8 "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare His generation? for He was CUT OFF out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was He stricken."

He was cut off from the living not for Himself, but for the transgressions of His people. The people of this Prince (Messiah) that shall come, are the people of Israel. We cannot try to force history into the text saying this prince is anti-Christ, Titus, or the Romans. They are not who Daniel is speaking of here. There simply is no mention of any evil prince here. Not in another translation, nor is it in the original language. This is simply an idea coming from fulfilled history reading a doctrinal point of view into the text.

The only Prince that is being spoken about here is Messiah, the Prince. And so, the only people of the Prince that is being spoken of here, is Israel. It's clear that the whole context of the chapter is about the people of Messiah, the Prince that shall come. Some translators, and unfortunately, Premillennial theologians, have let their bias creep into their theology, and some newer translations add their own biased commentary to God's Word.

Please consider these scriptures carefully, Daniel chapter 9 verse 25 says that:

..the anointed Prince [mashiyach nagiyd] shall come and gives us the time period of seven 7's and sixty-two 7's from the command to build again the Temple. There we have the prophecy of the coming of [mashiyach nagiyd] (Messiah the Prince). Then Daniel 9 verse 26 'continues,' saying:

...the people of this Prince [nagiyd] that shall come, shall destroy [meaning bring to ruin] City and Sanctuary.
Why would God speak about the 'mashiyach nagiyd coming' in one verse, and then in the very next verse say 'the people of the nagiyd coming,' ..and be speaking about some totally other Nagiyd or Prince? It makes no sense, unless we have a particular doctrine to prove. The only way we can make this verse say Evil-Prince, is if through our assumptions we add the words Evil Prince, or Titus, or Romans, etc. Because God's Word doesn't say it or even allude to it!

Even when we look at the context starting at verse 24, 'God Himself' tells us what He is going to be talking about, and He makes no mention of any evil Prince. He tells us what is determined to happen in these 70 weeks.

 

[rwb]

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.....

That is not what the texts tells us. If the prince of the people that was to come is the Roman Army under Titus, how is this unknown prince not the same "he shall confirm the covenant"? Where in these verses does Daniel refer back to Messiah the Prince?

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.

 

[covenantee]

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.

But grammatically, the antecedent/referent of "prince" in verse 26 is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25. Messiah is the only individual in the passage identified as a prince.

Messiah was the Prince who came, several hundred years after Daniel wrote.

In 70 AD, Messiah used the Romans as His agents/people, to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon the unbelieving nation which had rejected Him.

Notably, He also used as agents His former people the Jews, whom history records were to a considerable extent complicit in that judgment and destruction.

And the Prince is Messiah throughout.

 

[CTK]

Charlie, do you realize this makes an assumption without biblical authority to do so? The city and temple had become desolate before Messiah came. Daniel is only saying the people of the prince that shall come are the ones who make desolate the city and sanctuary, but he does not say the desolation comes AFTER the prince shall come, or by the people of this unknown prince.

You're reading this as though Daniel says, "Messiah shall be cut off, and after that the people of an unknown prince shall come and destroy the city and sanctuary".

The passage shows only that Messiah was not cut off for Himself, but for the sins of His people. Again, there is no biblical authority to read fulfilled history into the text.

Daniel 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."

Messiah was cut off for the sins of 'His People!'

Isaiah 53:8 "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare His generation? for He was CUT OFF out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was He stricken."

He was cut off from the living not for Himself, but for the transgressions of His people. The people of this Prince (Messiah) that shall come, are the people of Israel. We cannot try to force history into the text saying this prince is anti-Christ, Titus, or the Romans. They are not who Daniel is speaking of here. There simply is no mention of any evil prince here. Not in another translation, nor is it in the original language. This is simply an idea coming from fulfilled history reading a doctrinal point of view into the text.

The only Prince that is being spoken about here is Messiah, the Prince. And so, the only people of the Prince that is being spoken of here, is Israel. It's clear that the whole context of the chapter is about the people of Messiah, the Prince that shall come. Some translators, and unfortunately, Premillennial theologians, have let their bias creep into their theology, and some newer translations add their own biased commentary to God's Word.

Please consider these scriptures carefully, Daniel chapter 9 verse 25 says that:

..the anointed Prince [mashiyach nagiyd] shall come and gives us the time period of seven 7's and sixty-two 7's from the command to build again the Temple. There we have the prophecy of the coming of [mashiyach nagiyd] (Messiah the Prince). Then Daniel 9 verse 26 'continues,' saying:

...the people of this Prince [nagiyd] that shall come, shall destroy [meaning bring to ruin] City and Sanctuary.
Why would God speak about the 'mashiyach nagiyd coming' in one verse, and then in the very next verse say 'the people of the nagiyd coming,' ..and be speaking about some totally other Nagiyd or Prince? It makes no sense, unless we have a particular doctrine to prove. The only way we can make this verse say Evil-Prince, is if through our assumptions we add the words Evil Prince, or Titus, or Romans, etc. Because God's Word doesn't say it or even allude to it!

Even when we look at the context starting at verse 24, 'God Himself' tells us what He is going to be talking about, and He makes no mention of any evil Prince. He tells us what is determined to happen in these 70 weeks.

Daniel 9:26 identifies the destroying people. And the destroying people, in history, were Roman. Daniel 9:25 says “Messiah the Prince.” But Daniel 9:26 does not say “Messiah the Prince.” It says “the people of the prince who is to come.” If Daniel intended simply to say “Messiah’s people,” the wording could have been much clearer. Instead, the verse first tells us Messiah is cut off, then speaks of another event: the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the people belonging to a coming prince (Jesus cannot be that “coming prince” because the destruction of the Temple occurred after the cross and the “prince who is to come” will come after 70 AD).

Order of events:

Messiah the Prince comes.
Jerusalem rejects Him.

Messiah is cut off.
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.


He is the only “coming prince” that arrives after 70 AD, becomes the prince over those people who did destroy the city, and is the only one God would refer to using the term “nagiyd” without Messiah. This is indeed purposeful since God is identifying a ruler (nagiyd) that thinks he is a prince (like figure (God like figure), AND, where God does not use the Hebrew word for a generic ruler that He uses in verses 6 and 8.

Please let me know your thoughts….

 

[rwb]

Daniel 9:26 identifies the destroying people. And the destroying people, in history, were Roman. Daniel 9:25 says “Messiah the Prince.” But Daniel 9:26 does not say “Messiah the Prince.” It says “the people of the prince who is to come.” If Daniel intended simply to say “Messiah’s people,” the wording could have been much clearer. Instead, the verse first tells us Messiah is cut off, then speaks of another event: the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the people belonging to a coming prince (Jesus cannot be that “coming prince” because the destruction of the Temple occurred after the cross and the “prince who is to come” will come after 70 AD).

Order of events:

Messiah the Prince comes.
Jerusalem rejects Him.

Messiah is cut off.
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.


He is the only “coming prince” that arrives after 70 AD, becomes the prince over those people who did destroy the city, and is the only one God would refer to using the term “nagiyd” without Messiah. This is indeed purposeful since God is identifying a ruler (nagiyd) that thinks he is a prince (like figure (God like figure), AND, where God does not use the Hebrew word for a generic ruler that He uses in verses 6 and 8.

Please let me know your thoughts….

My thoughts are simple Charlie, this view is the typical Premillennialists POV, reading Daniel's prophesy through the lens of 70 AD. IOW you read the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD INTO Daniel's prophesy, forcing it to fit. Nowhere in Daniel's prophesy do we read of a "coming prince that arrives after 70 AD".

 

[CTK]

That is not what the texts tells us. If the prince of the people that was to come is the Roman Army under Titus, how is this unknown prince not the same "he shall confirm the covenant"? Where in these verses does Daniel refer back to Messiah the Prince?

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 you are relying heavily on the nearest noun argument:

Daniel 9:25 says “Messiah the Prince.”
Daniel 9:26 says “the people of the prince who is to come.”
Therefore, he says, the “prince” in 9:26 must be Messiah.

But Daniel 9:26 itself gives more information than merely the nearest noun. The verse identifies this prince indirectly through his people and through the event they accomplish.

Daniel 9:26 says: “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

So the question is not merely, “What is the nearest noun?” The question is:

Who are the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary?

Historically, those people were the Romans in AD 70. Therefore, the prince connected with those people must be associated with the Roman sphere, not with Israel.

Also, the wording “who is to come” matters. The text does not say: “the people of Messiah the Prince” or: “His people shall destroy the city and sanctuary.” It says: “the people of the prince who is to come.”

That phrase allows the “people” to appear in the destruction of AD 70 while the “prince” connected to them is still future from that event or at least prophetically identified as coming from that same people.

So we are not simply forcing history into the text. We are to read the text’s own identifying markers:

The people destroy the city and sanctuary.​

​

The destroyers were historically Roman.​

​

The prince is connected to those people.​

​

Therefore, the coming prince arises from the Roman world.​

​

He is called “prince,” but not “Messiah the Prince.”​

​

This harmonizes with Daniel 7 and 8, where a later little horn arises out of the fourth beast/Roman sphere. ​

If “the people” are Israel, then Daniel 9:26 becomes awkward because Israel did not actually destroy the city and sanctuary. Israel’s rejection of Messiah brought covenant judgment, but the physical destruction was carried out by Rome. Israel was the covenant cause of the desolation; Rome was the historical people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, and this “prince who is to come does indeed come after the destruction of the Temple AND, is from those people who destroyed the city.”

 

[CTK]

But grammatically, the antecedent/referent of "prince" in verse 26 is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25. Messiah is the only individual in the passage identified as a prince.

Messiah was the Prince who came, several hundred years after Daniel wrote.

In 70 AD, Messiah used the Romans as His agents/people, to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon the unbelieving nation which had rejected Him.

Notably, He also used as agents His former people the Jews, whom history records were to a considerable extent complicit in that judgment and destruction.

And the Prince is Messiah throughout.

I understand your grammatical point, but the issue is not settled by saying Messiah is the nearest named Prince in verse 25. Daniel 9:26 gives us more information than simply the word “prince.” It says, “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Therefore, the verse itself identifies the people by what they do: they destroy the city and sanctuary.

Historically, the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 were Roman armies. That is not reading history into the text unfairly. That is recognizing the fulfillment of the very destruction Daniel described.

Now, there is absolutely no question that Messiah is sovereign and that Rome could be used as an instrument of divine judgment. God used Babylon against Jerusalem in the Old Testament, and He could certainly use Rome in AD 70. But that does not make Babylon “the people of Messiah,” and does not make the Roman armies “the people of Messiah” either. There is a difference between being used by God as an instrument of judgment and being called the people of Messiah.

The phrase “the people of the prince who is to come” identifies the prince by the people connected to him. If the destroying people were Roman, then the coming prince is connected with the Roman sphere.

That also explains why verse 25 says “Messiah the Prince,” but verse 26 does not repeat “Messiah the Prince.” It simply says “the prince who is to come.” That distinction matters. Messiah has already been identified and then cut off. After that, Daniel speaks of the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the people of another coming prince.

This does not make Daniel 9:27 about that prince. The Messiah fulfills Daniel 9:27. Christ confirms the covenant with many, and by His once-for-all sacrifice He causes sacrifice and oblation to cease in their true spiritual purpose.

So I would separate the issues this way:

Messiah the Prince comes in verse 25.
Messiah is cut off in verse 26.
The city and sanctuary are destroyed by Roman people in verse 26.
The coming prince is associated with that Roman people.
Messiah confirms the covenant in verse 27.

The Roman armies may have been instruments of Messiah’s judgment, but that does not make them Messiah’s people in the natural sense of Daniel 9:26. The text points to the people who destroyed the city, and those people were Roman.

 

[CTK]

My thoughts are simple Charlie, this view is the typical Premillennialists POV, reading Daniel's prophesy through the lens of 70 AD. IOW you read the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD INTO Daniel's prophesy, forcing it to fit. Nowhere in Daniel's prophesy do we read of a "coming prince that arrives after 70 AD".

The typical premillennial view usually takes the “prince who is to come” in verse 26 and then makes the “he” of verse 27 an end-time Antichrist who confirms a future covenant. That is not what I am arguing.

I believe Daniel 9:27 is fulfilled by Messiah. Christ confirms the covenant with many, and in the midst of the week He causes sacrifice and oblation to cease by His once-for-all sacrifice. So I am not moving Daniel 9:27 away from Christ.

The question is Daniel 9:26.

Daniel 9:26 says that after Messiah is cut off, the city and sanctuary will be destroyed. That is not reading history into the text. That is what the text says. The city and sanctuary are destroyed after Messiah is cut off. Historically, that destruction occurred in AD 70 through the Roman armies. So when I mention AD 70, I am not forcing an outside doctrine into the passage. I am identifying the historical destruction Daniel said would occur after Messiah was cut off.

The Jewish rejection of Messiah was the covenant cause of the desolation. Jesus Himself said, “Your house is left unto you desolate.” But the historical instrument that destroyed the city and sanctuary was Rome. That distinction matters. Also, Daniel 9:26 does not simply say “Messiah’s people shall destroy the city and sanctuary.” It says “the people of the prince who is to come.” The verse identifies the people by what they do: they destroy the city and sanctuary. The people who did that in history were Roman. Therefore, the prince connected with those people must be connected with the Roman sphere.

That does not mean Daniel 9:27 is about that prince. I agree that verse 27 is Messianic. But verse 26 still contains a reference to the destroying people, and those people were Roman.

So I would distinguish my view from the premillennial view very clearly:

I do not make Daniel 9:27 about Antichrist.
I do not make the covenant in verse 27 a future political treaty.
I do not remove Messiah from the center of the prophecy.

I simply recognize that Daniel 9:26 says the city and sanctuary would be destroyed after Messiah was cut off, and history shows that destruction was carried out by Rome in AD 70. Therefore, my view is not built on premillennial futurism. It is built on the sequence of the text itself: Messiah comes, Messiah is cut off, the city and sanctuary are destroyed, and Messiah confirms the covenant and brings sacrifice to its true end.

 

[rwb]

If “the people” are Israel, then Daniel 9:26 becomes awkward because Israel did not actually destroy the city and sanctuary.

Yes, Charlie in the spiritual sense they did. Because the physical city and temple are representative of the true city and temple which are Jerusalem from above, and Christ is the Spiritual Temple. When the apostate Jews polluted the physical city and temple it symbolizes them bringing pollution into the Kingdom of God in heaven. Their final act of rebellion against God was to crucify the One who came to save. That's why when Christ returns He shall send His angels to gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and work iniquity. This is a depiction of the Kingdom being taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth fruits.

Hebrews 12:22 (KJV) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Revelation 3:12 (KJV) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Matthew 21:43 (KJV) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 13:41 (KJV) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

You're reading Daniel's prophesy through physical fulfillment. I read the prophesy through spiritual fulfillment. Though these things would physically come to pass, I believe Daniel was given to understand the Kingdom of God of the promised Messiah the Prince would not be specifically through physical fulfillment but was spoken in a manner that he and we might come to know the spiritual Kingdom of God that Messiah the Prince would come to earth with.

 

[CTK]

Yes, Charlie in the spiritual sense they did. Because the physical city and temple are representative of the true city and temple which are Jerusalem from above, and Christ is the Spiritual Temple. When the apostate Jews polluted the physical city and temple it symbolizes them bringing pollution into the Kingdom of God in heaven. Their final act of rebellion against God was to crucify the One who came to save. That's why when Christ returns He shall send His angels to gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and work iniquity. This is a depiction of the Kingdom being taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth fruits.

Hebrews 12:22 (KJV) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Revelation 3:12 (KJV) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Matthew 21:43 (KJV) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 13:41 (KJV) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

You're reading Daniel's prophesy through physical fulfillment. I read the prophesy through spiritual fulfillment. Though these things would physically come to pass, I believe Daniel was given to understand the Kingdom of God of the promised Messiah the Prince would not be specifically through physical fulfillment but was spoken in a manner that he and we might come to know the spiritual Kingdom of God that Messiah the Prince would come to earth with.

Yes, Charlie in the spiritual sense they did. Because the physical city and temple are representative of the true city and temple which are Jerusalem from above, and Christ is the Spiritual Temple. When the apostate Jews polluted the physical city and temple it symbolizes them bringing pollution into the Kingdom of God in heaven. Their final act of rebellion against God was to crucify the One who came to save. That's why when Christ returns He shall send His angels to gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend and work iniquity. This is a depiction of the Kingdom being taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth fruits.

Hebrews 12:22 (KJV) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Revelation 3:12 (KJV) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Matthew 21:43 (KJV) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 13:41 (KJV) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

You're reading Daniel's prophesy through physical fulfillment. I read the prophesy through spiritual fulfillment. Though these things would physically come to pass, I believe Daniel was given to understand the Kingdom of God of the promised Messiah the Prince would not be specifically through physical fulfillment but was spoken in a manner that he and we might come to know the spiritual Kingdom of God that Messiah the Prince would come to earth with.

I understand the spiritual point you are making, and I agree that the New Testament reveals a deeper reality beyond the physical temple and earthly Jerusalem. Christ is the true Temple. Hebrews speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem. Revelation speaks of the New Jerusalem. Jesus said the kingdom would be taken from those who rejected Him and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits. So I am not denying the spiritual fulfillment. But I do not think the spiritual meaning cancels the physical fulfillment in Daniel 9:26.

Daniel 9:26 does not merely say the city and sanctuary would be polluted, profaned, or spiritually corrupted. It says they would be destroyed. And in the same prophecy, Daniel had just been told that the city would be rebuilt with street and wall, even in troublous times. That was a physical city. So when the same prophecy later says the city and sanctuary would be destroyed, the natural reading is that the rebuilt physical city and sanctuary would be destroyed.

That does not deny the spiritual meaning. It simply keeps both levels in place:

The spiritual cause was rejection of Messiah.​

​

The physical fulfillment was the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.​

 

[covenantee]

Israel did not actually destroy the city and sanctuary.

"While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand your grammatical point, but the issue is not settled by saying Messiah is the nearest named Prince in verse 25. Daniel 9:26 gives us more information than simply the word “prince.” It says, “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Therefore, the verse itself identifies the people by what they do: they destroy the city and sanctuary.

It is not this simple. Who were the people responsible for the city and the sanctuary being destroyed? The Jews. The Jewish leaders and Jewish unbelievers are the ones who pressured Pontius Pilate to sentence Him to death and the Jews overall rejection of Christ (not all did, but most) was the cause of the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

This is Peter telling the Jews that they crucified Jesus even though it was the Roman soldiers who actually crucified Him. He said that because they are the ones who ordered Jesus to be "crucified, and put to death". So, this shows that it's not unreasonable to think that Daniel 9:26 is referring to the people who were actually responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary rather than the people who actually destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

I understand why people think it's talking about the Roman armies as being the people of the prince because they are the ones who literally, physically destroyed the city and the sanctuary. However, there are examples in the Bible of a person or people being identified as being responsible for killing someone despite not being the actual person or people who did it. I already gave one example above and then here is another example...

2 Samuel 11:14 In the morning it happened that David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retreat from him, that he may be struck down and die.” 16 So it was, while Joab besieged the city, that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men. 17 Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab. And some of the people of the servants of David fell; and Uriah the Hittite died also.

So, David wrote a letter to Joab while claiming to be Uriah and it contained a request for Uriah to be sent to the frontlines of the battle so that he would be killed. And that is what happened. The Ammonites killed Uriah. Yet, here is what it says later...

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

This is Nathan talking to David and saying that he killed Uriah even though it was actually the Ammonites who killed him. So, it's not unreasonable to think that the people of Messiah the prince, which were the Jews (He was a Jew), destroyed the city and the sanctuary in a sense even though they are not the ones who literally destroyed it.

Historically, the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 were Roman armies. That is not reading history into the text unfairly. That is recognizing the fulfillment of the very destruction Daniel described.

Sure. And, that's why that is a viable option as to what the verse is talking about. But, even with this understanding it could still be talking about the people of Messiah the prince.

I say that because of what is written in this verse....

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The king here represents God the Father and this is referring to His response to those who rejected His Son and killed His servants. It says He sent out his armies and destroyed them and their city. What armies actually destroyed the city? The Roman armies. There is a sense in which they were God's armies because He used them to carry out His wrath against the unbelieving Jews. So, they could be thought of as the people of the prince in that sense.

And the other option is that it's talking about the Roman armies led by their ruler Titus. The thing that doesn't make much sense about this view to me is that the text seems to refer to "the prince who is to come" in a way that the readers would be expected to know who it is referring to. That makes sense if it's referring back to Messiah the prince just as the reference to the Messiah does. I think it's reasonable to think it just says "the prince" because people would know it's referring back to Messiah the prince just as the reference to "the Messiah" is referring back to the previous mention of Messiah the prince.

Now, there is absolutely no question that Messiah is sovereign and that Rome could be used as an instrument of divine judgment. God used Babylon against Jerusalem in the Old Testament, and He could certainly use Rome in AD 70. But that does not make Babylon “the people of Messiah,”

Well, in a sense, it can mean that. If He wants to use people for a certain purpose then those people can become His people for that purpose whether they are aware of it or not and whether they are believers or not.

and does not make the Roman armies “the people of Messiah” either. There is a difference between being used by God as an instrument of judgment and being called the people of Messiah.

I think if it's referring to Messiah the prince then the more likely case it's that the people of the prince would refer to the Jews since Jesus identified Himself as being a Jew (John 4:22).

The phrase “the people of the prince who is to come” identifies the prince by the people connected to him. If the destroying people were Roman, then the coming prince is connected with the Roman sphere.

That also explains why verse 25 says “Messiah the Prince,” but verse 26 does not repeat “Messiah the Prince.” It simply says “the prince who is to come.” That distinction matters. Messiah has already been identified and then cut off. After that, Daniel speaks of the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the people of another coming prince.

This does not make Daniel 9:27 about that prince. The Messiah fulfills Daniel 9:27

Right. I agree with this. Even if Daniel 9:26 is referring to Titus or some other Roman ruler, the focus there is on the people of the prince and not on the prince himself. The last time an individual is the focus is when it refers to the Messiah. So, that is who Daniel 9:27 is referring to regardless of whether the prince who is to come is referring to the Messiah or not.

. Christ confirms the covenant with many, and by His once-for-all sacrifice He causes sacrifice and oblation to cease in their true spiritual purpose.

So I would separate the issues this way:

Messiah the Prince comes in verse 25.
Messiah is cut off in verse 26.
The city and sanctuary are destroyed by Roman people in verse 26.
The coming prince is associated with that Roman people.
Messiah confirms the covenant in verse 27.

The Roman armies may have been instruments of Messiah’s judgment, but that does not make them Messiah’s people in the natural sense of Daniel 9:26. The text points to the people who destroyed the city, and those people were Roman.

That's a viable way or reading the text, but I lean towards agreeing with @covenantee in his understanding of this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

This is definitely worth considering, but I also think that the text doesn't necessarily have to be referring to the ones who actually physically destroyed the city and the sanctuary. Peter said that the Jews killed Jesus in Acts 2:23 even though it was actually the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross. So, he was saying they killed Him in the sense that they were the ones who called for and ordered for Him to be crucified. In a similar sense, it can be said that the Jews destroyed the city and the sanctuary because the destruction occurred due to the Jews having rejected Christ (not all of them, of course, but most).

 

[covenantee]

This is definitely worth considering, but I also think that the text doesn't necessarily have to be referring to the ones who actually physically destroyed the city and the sanctuary. Peter said that the Jews killed Jesus in Acts 2:23 even though it was actually the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross. So, he was saying they killed Him in the sense that they were the ones who called for and ordered for Him to be crucified. In a similar sense, it can be said that the Jews destroyed the city and the sanctuary because the destruction occurred due to the Jews having rejected Christ (not all of them, of course, but most).

Sure. I can readily accept that both perspectives are concurrently germane.