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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Daniel 9: 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,

Yes, that's one prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and it's also mentioned in Luke 19:41-44, Luke 21:6-7, Luke 21:20-24, Matthew 22:7, Matthew 24:1-2, Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 3:1-2 and Mark 13:14-20. Some of those are parallel passages, obviously. I'm trying to see if he will acknowledge that the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple was prophesied in the Bible.

 

[rwb]

Yes, that's one prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and it's also mentioned in Luke 19:41-44, Luke 21:6-7, Luke 21:20-24, Matthew 22:7, Matthew 24:1-2, Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 3:1-2 and Mark 13:14-20. Some of those are parallel passages, obviously. I'm trying to see if he will acknowledge that the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple was prophesied in the Bible.

Yes, that's one prophesy the Preterit uses to assume Daniel 9 is referring to the physical destruction in 70 AD.

How do you biblically prove Lk 19:41-44 is prophesy for the destruction that came in 70 AD and keep within the timeframe given by Daniel it happening within the 490 years he foretells all he wrote would be fulfilled? The same question applies to some of your other proof texts above?

Mt. 24:1-2 is a parable explaining what heaven is like.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, that's one prophesy the Preterit uses to assume Daniel 9 is referring to the physical destruction in 70 AD.

How do you biblically prove Lk 19:41-44 is prophesy for the destruction that came in 70 AD and keep within the timeframe given by Daniel it happening within the 490 years he foretells all he wrote would be fulfilled? The same question applies to some of your other proof texts above?

So, what is your answer to my question? It's very difficult to get you to actually answer a question for some reason. It seems that you do not believe that the Bible prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple anywhere. Is that correct? Yes or no, please.

Mt. 24:1-2 is a parable explaining what heaven is like.

No, it clearly is not. Are you thinking of something else?

Matthew 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This is obviously not a parable about what heaven is like.

 

[CTK]

Yes, that's one prophesy the Preterit uses to assume Daniel 9 is referring to the physical destruction in 70 AD.

How do you biblically prove Lk 19:41-44 is prophesy for the destruction that came in 70 AD and keep within the timeframe given by Daniel it happening within the 490 years he foretells all he wrote would be fulfilled? The same question applies to some of your other proof texts above?

Mt. 24:1-2 is a parable explaining what heaven is like.

Daniel 9:24–27 must be read with careful attention to the difference between what the seventy weeks are appointed to accomplish and what the prophecy later reveals as consequences for rejecting the Messiah.

Verse 24 gives the controlling purpose of the seventy weeks:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city…”

The seventy weeks are not introduced as a general timeline requiring every event mentioned in verses 24–27 to be completed within the 490 years. Rather, the seventy weeks are specifically determined upon Daniel’s people and holy city for the accomplishment of six redemptive and covenantal purposes: to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

Those are restorative purposes. They are messianic purposes. They are the things God determined to accomplish within the seventy weeks.

Verse 25 continues that restorative movement. Jerusalem would be restored and rebuilt. Messiah the Prince would come. The city would be rebuilt in troubled times, and the appointed prophetic period would carry the people forward to the arrival of the Messiah.

So verses 24 and 25 are restoration verses.

They speak of God’s covenant purpose, Jerusalem’s rebuilding, Messiah’s appearing, reconciliation for iniquity, everlasting righteousness, and the sealing up of prophetic vision. These are the things that belong to the seventy-week mission itself.

But verse 26 changes the tone.

After the sixty-two weeks, Messiah is cut off. Then the prophecy speaks of destruction: the people of the prince who is to come destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end comes with a flood. Desolations are determined. This is no longer the restorative purpose of the seventy weeks. This is the consequence of rejecting the Messiah. That distinction is crucial.

The cutting off of Messiah belongs to the seventy-week framework because His death is the very means by which the redemptive purposes of verse 24 are accomplished. Through Him, reconciliation is made. Everlasting righteousness is brought in. Sacrifice and offering reach their true fulfillment.

But the destruction of the city and sanctuary is not one of the six stated purposes of verse 24. It is not part of the restorative mission. It is a judicial consequence that follows the rejection of Messiah.

Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 does not have to occur within the seventy weeks in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled. Daniel 9 can reveal consequences that flow from Israel’s rejection of Messiah without requiring every consequence to be completed before the seventy weeks expire.

Verse 27 continues this same destructive consequence pattern.

Messiah confirms the covenant and brings sacrifice and offering to their true fulfillment. But the rejection of Him produces desolation. The abomination that causes desolation is not merely a political event. At its deepest level, it is the covenant horror of rejecting the One whom God sent — the Messiah, the Prince, the true sacrifice, the true sanctuary, and the only means of restoration.

The physical destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 was terrible. But it was not the deepest consequence. The greater consequence was spiritual. When Israel rejected her Messiah, God made desolate His relationship with His people. The temple could be destroyed by Roman armies, but the far greater desolation was the long spiritual separation that followed: blindness, scattering, unbelief, and the loss of covenant intimacy until the appointed consummation. This is the spiritual counterpart to the physical destruction of AD 70, and it is still counting!

Verse 26 shows the physical consequence: the city and sanctuary destroyed.
Verse 27 shows the spiritual consequence: desolation determined until the consummation.

Together, these two destructive verses reveal the consequences of rejecting Messiah. They do not belong to the restorative purposes of verses 24 and 25. They flow out of the rejection of the One who came to fulfill those restorative purposes. This is why it is a mistake to insist that the destruction of the temple must fall inside the seventy weeks. That argument assumes that every event mentioned in the passage must be completed within the 490 years. But the text itself does not say that.

What must be fulfilled within the seventy weeks are the redemptive purposes of verse 24 and the coming of Messiah in verse 25. The destructive consequences in verses 26 and 27 are revealed because they flow from the people’s response to Messiah, but they are not the restorative mission of the seventy weeks.

The seventy weeks are centered on Messiah’s appearing, His covenant-confirming work, His being cut off, and His accomplishment of reconciliation and everlasting righteousness.

The desolations that follow are consequences.


Thus, Daniel 9:24–27 unfolds in two movements.

Verses 24 and 25 reveal restoration: the city restored, Messiah coming, sin addressed, righteousness brought in, prophecy sealed, and the Most Holy anointed.

Verses 26 and 27 reveal the consequences of rejection: Messiah cut off, city and sanctuary destroyed, desolations determined, and the covenant relationship made desolate until the consummation.

The prophecy is not unfinished because AD 70 falls outside the seventy weeks. The prophecy’s redemptive center was fulfilled in Christ within the appointed period. The destruction of Jerusalem and the long spiritual desolation that followed are the judicial outworking of rejecting Him. That is the point: the seventy weeks accomplish God’s restorative purpose through Messiah, while the destruction and desolation reveal the tragic consequences of refusing that restoration.

 

[rwb]

Daniel 9:24–27 must be read with careful attention to the difference between what the seventy weeks are appointed to accomplish and what the prophecy later reveals as consequences for rejecting the Messiah.

Verse 24 gives the controlling purpose of the seventy weeks:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city…”

The seventy weeks are not introduced as a general timeline requiring every event mentioned in verses 24–27 to be completed within the 490 years. Rather, the seventy weeks are specifically determined upon Daniel’s people and holy city for the accomplishment of six redemptive and covenantal purposes: to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

Those are restorative purposes. They are messianic purposes. They are the things God determined to accomplish within the seventy weeks.

Verse 25 continues that restorative movement. Jerusalem would be restored and rebuilt. Messiah the Prince would come. The city would be rebuilt in troubled times, and the appointed prophetic period would carry the people forward to the arrival of the Messiah.

So verses 24 and 25 are restoration verses.

They speak of God’s covenant purpose, Jerusalem’s rebuilding, Messiah’s appearing, reconciliation for iniquity, everlasting righteousness, and the sealing up of prophetic vision. These are the things that belong to the seventy-week mission itself.

But verse 26 changes the tone.

After the sixty-two weeks, Messiah is cut off. Then the prophecy speaks of destruction: the people of the prince who is to come destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end comes with a flood. Desolations are determined. This is no longer the restorative purpose of the seventy weeks. This is the consequence of rejecting the Messiah. That distinction is crucial.

The cutting off of Messiah belongs to the seventy-week framework because His death is the very means by which the redemptive purposes of verse 24 are accomplished. Through Him, reconciliation is made. Everlasting righteousness is brought in. Sacrifice and offering reach their true fulfillment.

But the destruction of the city and sanctuary is not one of the six stated purposes of verse 24. It is not part of the restorative mission. It is a judicial consequence that follows the rejection of Messiah.

Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 does not have to occur within the seventy weeks in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled. Daniel 9 can reveal consequences that flow from Israel’s rejection of Messiah without requiring every consequence to be completed before the seventy weeks expire.

Verse 27 continues this same destructive consequence pattern.

Messiah confirms the covenant and brings sacrifice and offering to their true fulfillment. But the rejection of Him produces desolation. The abomination that causes desolation is not merely a political event. At its deepest level, it is the covenant horror of rejecting the One whom God sent — the Messiah, the Prince, the true sacrifice, the true sanctuary, and the only means of restoration.

The physical destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 was terrible. But it was not the deepest consequence. The greater consequence was spiritual. When Israel rejected her Messiah, God made desolate His relationship with His people. The temple could be destroyed by Roman armies, but the far greater desolation was the long spiritual separation that followed: blindness, scattering, unbelief, and the loss of covenant intimacy until the appointed consummation. This is the spiritual counterpart to the physical destruction of AD 70, and it is still counting!

Verse 26 shows the physical consequence: the city and sanctuary destroyed.
Verse 27 shows the spiritual consequence: desolation determined until the consummation.

Together, these two destructive verses reveal the consequences of rejecting Messiah. They do not belong to the restorative purposes of verses 24 and 25. They flow out of the rejection of the One who came to fulfill those restorative purposes. This is why it is a mistake to insist that the destruction of the temple must fall inside the seventy weeks. That argument assumes that every event mentioned in the passage must be completed within the 490 years. But the text itself does not say that.

What must be fulfilled within the seventy weeks are the redemptive purposes of verse 24 and the coming of Messiah in verse 25. The destructive consequences in verses 26 and 27 are revealed because they flow from the people’s response to Messiah, but they are not the restorative mission of the seventy weeks.

The seventy weeks are centered on Messiah’s appearing, His covenant-confirming work, His being cut off, and His accomplishment of reconciliation and everlasting righteousness.

The desolations that follow are consequences.


Thus, Daniel 9:24–27 unfolds in two movements.

Verses 24 and 25 reveal restoration: the city restored, Messiah coming, sin addressed, righteousness brought in, prophecy sealed, and the Most Holy anointed.

Verses 26 and 27 reveal the consequences of rejection: Messiah cut off, city and sanctuary destroyed, desolations determined, and the covenant relationship made desolate until the consummation.

The prophecy is not unfinished because AD 70 falls outside the seventy weeks. The prophecy’s redemptive center was fulfilled in Christ within the appointed period. The destruction of Jerusalem and the long spiritual desolation that followed are the judicial outworking of rejecting Him. That is the point: the seventy weeks accomplish God’s restorative purpose through Messiah, while the destruction and desolation reveal the tragic consequences of refusing that restoration.

No matter how you try to slice it the prophesy of Dan 9 must be fulfilled in the timeframe allotted that is 490 years! Not 490 years plus 30-40 years. The breaks in this timeframe show what shall come to pass at differing points within the same timeframe of 490 years. Your view not quite the same as the Preterit is built upon the belief of dispensationalism, and a literal one thousand year period of physical time given the earth when Christ shall come again. But your view like the Preterit view cannot reconcile how 70 AD can be fitted into the very exacting timeframe given us through the prophet Daniel.

You're attempting to use the consequences that come upon all mankind as a way of trying to force Daniel's prophesy to 70 AD.

 

[rwb]

No, it clearly is not. Are you thinking of something else?

Yes, I meant Mt 22 Th parable of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I meant Mt 22 Th parable of the kingdom of heaven.

Can you tell me your understanding of the parable up to and including verse 7?

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No matter how you try to slice it the prophesy of Dan 9 must be fulfilled in the timeframe allotted that is 490 years! Not 490 years plus 30-40 years. The breaks in this timeframe show what shall come to pass at differing points within the same timeframe of 490 years. Your view not quite the same as the Preterit is built upon the belief of dispensationalism, and a literal one thousand year period of physical time given the earth when Christ shall come again. But your view like the Preterit view cannot reconcile how 70 AD can be fitted into the very exacting timeframe given us through the prophet Daniel.

You're attempting to use the consequences that come upon all mankind as a way of trying to force Daniel's prophesy to 70 AD.

There is nothing in the prophecy itself that says every word within Daniel 9:24-27 had to be fulfilled withn the 490 years. It specifically says that about the six things listed in Daniel 9:24. It does NOT say that about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. It does not say that there would be no consequences of things that happened during the 70 weeks. The consequences of the Messiah being cut off and rejected was not only the spiritual desolation of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-38), but also its physical destruction and desolation (Luke 19:41-44) and the prophecy alludes to that. Your beliefs force you to deny that the Bible prophesies at all about the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple, which is completely unreasonable.

 

[CTK]

No matter how you try to slice it the prophesy of Dan 9 must be fulfilled in the timeframe allotted that is 490 years! Not 490 years plus 30-40 years. The breaks in this timeframe show what shall come to pass at differing points within the same timeframe of 490 years. Your view not quite the same as the Preterit is built upon the belief of dispensationalism, and a literal one thousand year period of physical time given the earth when Christ shall come again. But your view like the Preterit view cannot reconcile how 70 AD can be fitted into the very exacting timeframe given us through the prophet Daniel.

You're attempting to use the consequences that come upon all mankind as a way of trying to force Daniel's prophesy to 70 AD.

what is telling you that the spiritual and the physical consequences of rejecting their Messiah must occur within the 70 weeks? Are you really saying the temple must be destroyed within the remaining 3,5 years after the cross?

 

[rwb]

There is nothing in the prophecy itself that says every word within Daniel 9:24-27 had to be fulfilled withn the 490 years. It specifically says that about the six things listed in Daniel 9:24. It does NOT say that about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. It does not say that there would be no consequences of things that happened during the 70 weeks. The consequences of the Messiah being cut off and rejected was not only the spiritual desolation of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-38), but also its physical destruction and desolation (Luke 19:41-44) and the prophecy alludes to that. Your beliefs force you to deny that the Bible prophesies at all about the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple, which is completely unreasonable.

what is telling you that the spiritual and the physical consequences of rejecting their Messiah must occur within the 70 weeks? Are you really saying the temple must be destroyed within the remaining 3,5 years after the cross?

If the prince that shall come is Titus in 70 AD as has been argued, his people who shall destroy the city and temple must be within the allotted timeframe after Messiah is cut off. All that is foretold in vs 24 must come to pass within the 490 years timeframe, which must include the army of Titus coming to destroy the city and temple because "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins" is part of the prophetic seventy weeks of years or 490 years.

 

[rwb]

what is telling you that the spiritual and the physical consequences of rejecting their Messiah must occur within the 70 weeks? Are you really saying the temple must be destroyed within the remaining 3,5 years after the cross?

If not accomplished within the allotted time of 490 years how can that be the time fixed to finish transgressions and make an end of sins? The city and temple will have been spiritually destroyed long before Messiah the Prince would come. The physical destruction that shall come in 70 AD are consequences directed to the nation for sinning against God.

 

[CTK]

If not accomplished within the allotted time of 490 years how can that be the time fixed to finish transgressions and make an end of sins? The city and temple will have been spiritually destroyed long before Messiah the Prince would come. The physical destruction that shall come in 70 AD are consequences directed to the nation for sinning against God.

I am not sure I understand your comment. The temple has nothing to do with the 6 elements in verse 24. His death on the cross accomplished those 6 elements.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am not sure I understand your comment. The temple has nothing to do with the 6 elements in verse 24. His death on the cross accomplished those 6 elements.

I agree. There is no basis whatsoever for his claim that everything written about in Daniel 9:24-27 had to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks. It only says that specifically about the six things listed in verse 24 that we know Christ fulfilled long ago and it speaks of Christ confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant sacrifices and offerings obsolete in verse 27 which He accomplished with His death. There is nothing in the text at all which demands that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary or "the consummation" had to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks. Those were consequences that the Jews who rejected Christ had to suffer because of not accepting what Christ accomplished during the 70th week.

 

[rwb]

I am not sure I understand your comment. The temple has nothing to do with the 6 elements in verse 24. His death on the cross accomplished those 6 elements.

The destruction of the city and temple by the people (Jews) of the prince (Christ) who was to come was the reason why the nation was physically destroyed in 70 AD. When Christ came since the nation had already been spiritually destroyed, He said to them, "Behold, your house is left unto desolate." But you want us to believe they would not be desolate before Titus and his Army would come some 30-40 years after the advent of Christ. That does not fit in the timeframe of Christ!

 

[CTK]

The destruction of the city and temple by the people (Jews) of the prince (Christ) who was to come was the reason why the nation was physically destroyed in 70 AD. When Christ came since the nation had already been spiritually destroyed, He said to them, "Behold, your house is left unto desolate." But you want us to believe they would not be desolate before Titus and his Army would come some 30-40 years after the advent of Christ. That does not fit in the timeframe of Christ!

NO. The prince who is to come does so after 70 ad. I believe I have explained this a few times in the previous posts. The consequence of their rejection could not occur prior to their rejection. Jesus in indeed telling them what will happen. Please read post #364 - it is quite detailed.

 

[rwb]

NO. The prince who is to come does so after 70 ad. I believe I have explained this a few times in the previous posts. The consequence of their rejection could not occur prior to their rejection. Jesus in indeed telling them what will happen. Please read post #364 - it is quite detailed.

NO. The Prince who was to come is Messiah the Prince, as well as "He" who shall confirm the Covenant. You're forcing a physical destruction of the city and temple through past history recorded through extrabiblical sources. The prophesy is NOT about what shall become of the nation physically, rather it is a warning of what they shall suffer when the nation once again turns away from God as they had in the time of Daniel when God ordained the Babylonians to destroy the city and temple and led the people into 70 years of captivity. Repeating again what you've previously said does not change the fact that it is not FROM the Bible but reading your doctrine INTO the Bible using extrabiblical sources.

 

[CTK]

The destruction of the city and temple by the people (Jews) of the prince (Christ) who was to come was the reason why the nation was physically destroyed in 70 AD. When Christ came since the nation had already been spiritually destroyed, He said to them, "Behold, your house is left unto desolate." But you want us to believe they would not be desolate before Titus and his Army would come some 30-40 years after the advent of Christ. That does not fit in the timeframe of Christ!

Chiastic structure for 9:24 - 27

A — Spiritual restoration
Daniel 9:24 — sin, atonement, righteousness, prophecy, Most Holy

B — Physical restoration
Daniel 9:25a — Jerusalem restored and rebuilt

C — True/restorative Prince
Daniel 9:25b — Messiah the Prince comes
C′ — False/destructive prince
Daniel 9:26 — the prince who is to come, identified by the destroying people

B′ — Physical destruction
Daniel 9:26 — city and sanctuary destroyed

A′ — Spiritual consequence
Daniel 9:27 — covenant confirmed, sacrifices cease, abomination/desolation follows



Why the “prince who is to come” belongs opposite Messiah the Prince

The phrase “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 belongs to the restorative half. He is the anointed Prince who comes after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and through whom the redemptive goals of verse 24 are fulfilled. But verse 26 introduces another prince — not “Messiah the Prince,” but “the prince who is to come.” He is not introduced by anointing, restoration, righteousness, or covenant fulfillment. He is introduced through his people, and his people are identified by destruction:

“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

That means his identity is tied to the power responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Historically, that destruction came through Rome in AD 70. Therefore, the coming prince belongs to the Roman sphere and later develops in the same stream of opposition seen elsewhere in Daniel — especially the little horn power.

So the contrast is deliberate:

Messiah the Prince comes to restore.
The coming prince arises from the destroying power.

Messiah the Prince confirms the covenant and ends sacrifice by fulfillment.
The coming prince is associated with the desolating power that follows rejection.

Messiah brings the spiritual restoration of verse 24.
The coming prince belongs to the destructive consequences of verse 26.



Narrative Version

Daniel 9:24–27 is arranged around two matching movements: restoration and destruction.

The first movement is restorative. Verse 24 announces the spiritual restoration appointed for Daniel’s people and holy city: transgression will be finished, sins dealt with, iniquity reconciled, everlasting righteousness brought in, vision and prophecy sealed, and the Most Holy anointed. Verse 25 then gives the physical restoration: Jerusalem will be restored and rebuilt, even in troubled times. At the center of that restoration stands Messiah the Prince.

The second movement mirrors the first in judgment. The Messiah who comes in verse 25 is cut off in verse 26. After His rejection, the restored city and sanctuary of verse 25 are destroyed. But verse 26 also introduces another prince — the prince who is to come. This prince is not identified with Messiah the Prince. He is identified by the people who destroy the city and sanctuary. His connection is not with restoration, but with desolation.



This gives the passage a clear contrast between two princes.

Messiah the Prince is the Prince of restoration.
The prince who is to come is connected to destruction.

Messiah the Prince belongs to the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose.
The coming prince belongs to the power that follows in judgment after Messiah is rejected.

Messiah the Prince is revealed before the cutting off.
The coming prince is revealed after the cutting off, through the people who destroy the city and sanctuary.

This strengthens the structure. The passage is not merely contrasting restoration and destruction in general. It is contrasting the true Prince who restores with the coming prince whose people destroy.



Therefore, Daniel 9:24–27 may be read as a carefully balanced prophecy:

God restores the spiritual purpose of His people and city.
God restores Jerusalem physically.
Messiah the Prince comes.
Messiah is cut off.
The people of the coming prince destroy the city and sanctuary.
Desolation follows until the decreed end.

The city restored in verse 25 becomes the city destroyed in verse 26.
The sanctuary purpose fulfilled in verse 24 becomes the sacrificial system ended in verse 27.
The Messiah Prince of verse 25 is answered by the coming prince of verse 26.
The covenant purpose of God is fulfilled, but the rejection of that covenant brings judgment.

This makes Messiah the center of the prophecy and the dividing line of the whole structure. Everything before His rejection moves toward restoration. Everything after His rejection moves toward desolation.

NO. The Prince who was to come is Messiah the Prince, as well as "He" who shall confirm the Covenant. You're forcing a physical destruction of the city and temple through past history recorded through extrabiblical sources. The prophesy is NOT about what shall become of the nation physically, rather it is a warning of what they shall suffer when the nation once again turns away from God as they had in the time of Daniel when God ordained the Babylonians to destroy the city and temple and led the people into 70 years of captivity. Repeating again what you've previously said does not change the fact that it is not FROM the Bible but reading your doctrine INTO the Bible using extrabiblical sources.

Okay

NO. The Prince who was to come is Messiah the Prince, as well as "He" who shall confirm the Covenant. You're forcing a physical destruction of the city and temple through past history recorded through extrabiblical sources. The prophesy is NOT about what shall become of the nation physically, rather it is a warning of what they shall suffer when the nation once again turns away from God as they had in the time of Daniel when God ordained the Babylonians to destroy the city and temple and led the people into 70 years of captivity. Repeating again what you've previously said does not change the fact that it is not FROM the Bible but reading your doctrine INTO the Bible using extrabiblical sources.

 

[rwb]

C — True/restorative Prince
Daniel 9:25b — Messiah the Prince comes
C′ — False/destructive prince
Daniel 9:26 — the prince who is to come, identified by the destroying people

Why do you force another prince who is not Messiah the Prince? There is no introduction of a lesser prince who shall come. The prince who is to come does NOT destroy the city and temple, His (Jews) people do! In the same manner the Jews in the days of Daniel spiritually destroyed the city and temple and were destroyed by the Babylonians. This is why Christ tells His disciples "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)" Christ doesn't alert us to that which is spoken by Daniel the prophet so that we can get out of town before the destruction begins. He is warning us to heed the words of the prophet Daniel of WHY they were physically destroyed and sent into 70 years of captivity. Read Daniel's prayer, it shows us how the nation first became fallen and an abomination in the eyes of God, then came the physical destruction. In the same manner the Jews after Daniel if they do not heed the prophetic words would also suffer the same fate for the very same reason. They did not heed the prophets' words because when Christ came, they had already become desolate and an abomination in the sight of God. IOW had already spiritually destroyed the city and temple.

 

[CTK]

Why do you force another prince who is not Messiah the Prince? There is no introduction of a lesser prince who shall come. The prince who is to come does NOT destroy the city and temple, His (Jews) people do! In the same manner the Jews in the days of Daniel spiritually destroyed the city and temple and were destroyed by the Babylonians. This is why Christ tells His disciples "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)" Christ doesn't alert us to that which is spoken by Daniel the prophet so that we can get out of town before the destruction begins. He is warning us to heed the words of the prophet Daniel of WHY they were physically destroyed and sent into 70 years of captivity. Read Daniel's prayer, it shows us how the nation first became fallen and an abomination in the eyes of God, then came the physical destruction. In the same manner the Jews after Daniel if they do not heed the prophetic words would also suffer the same fate for the very same reason. They did not heed the prophets' words because when Christ came, they had already become desolate and an abomination in the sight of God. IOW had already spiritually destroyed the city and temple.

I agree with part of what you are saying, but I think you are blending two different levels of destruction that Daniel keeps distinct.
Yes, there was a spiritual condition before the physical destruction. Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 shows that Jerusalem’s earlier fall came after covenant disobedience. In the same way, by the time of Christ, the nation’s leadership had become spiritually desolate before the physical destruction of AD 70. I do not disagree with that principle.

But Daniel 9:26 is still speaking of a real physical destruction of the city and sanctuary: “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Jews did not physically destroy the city and temple in AD 70. Rome did.

So while the Jews were covenantally responsible for rejecting Messiah, the actual destroying “people” in verse 26 were the Roman people/armies. That is why the phrase points us to a prince connected to the Roman power, not simply back to Messiah the Prince in verse 25.

Also, the text does not say “His people,” as though it means Messiah’s people. It says “the people of the prince who is to come.” The people are identified by their connection to that coming prince, and historically the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary were Roman.

And when Jesus refers to Daniel’s abomination of desolation, He is not merely warning about old Babylonian history. He is pointing forward to the consequence of rejecting Him. The same pattern repeats: spiritual desolation first, physical destruction afterward. But that still does not make the Roman destroyers into the Jews, nor does it require the coming prince of verse 26 to be Messiah the Prince of verse 25.

 

[rwb]

But Daniel 9:26 is still speaking of a real physical destruction of the city and sanctuary: “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Jews did not physically destroy the city and temple in AD 70. Rome did.

The Bible does not tell us that Daniel was speaking of a real physical destruction of the city and sanctuary, you assume this through extrabiblical sources. Yes, the Jews did SPIRITUALLY destroy the city and temple by committing spiritual abominations against God. Why do you argue for the physical destruction in 70 AD? What comes next if this is what the prophet Daniel is speaking of? What are your expectations when Christ, the promised Messiah Prince shall come again?

So while the Jews were covenantally responsible for rejecting Messiah, the actual destroying “people” in verse 26 were the Roman people/armies. That is why the phrase points us to a prince connected to the Roman power, not simply back to Messiah the Prince in verse 25.


Also, the text does not say “His people,” as though it means Messiah’s people. It says “the people of the prince who is to come.” The people are identified by their connection to that coming prince, and historically the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary were Roman.

And when Jesus refers to Daniel’s abomination of desolation, He is not merely warning about old Babylonian history. He is pointing forward to the consequence of rejecting Him. The same pattern repeats: spiritual desolation first, physical destruction afterward. But that still does not make the Roman destroyers into the Jews, nor does it require the coming prince of verse 26 to be Messiah the Prince of verse 25.

No, the text does not point us to a prince connected to the Roman power. What the text does not say is that the prince that shall come is a lesser Prince than Messiah the Prince that has been the focus. Again, you only read Rome into the text through extrabiblical sources. Yes, the people coming who destroy the city and temple are indeed connected to the Prince that would come. They are of the same biological seeds of Abraham; Jews. Just as the Prince that would come the Messiah was born of the Jews.

Yes, Daniel is pointing forward to what shall befall his people in the future when they too reject God.