In Daniel 9:25, there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until “the messiah the prince.” Then, in verse 26a, it explains what happens after the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, “the messiah” is cut off, and in verse 26b, the people of “the prince” who is to come destroy the city and the sanctuary.
If the “Messiah” in verse 26a naturally refers back to the “Messiah” in verse 25, why wouldn’t the “prince” in verse 26b also naturally refer back to the “prince” in verse 25? What in the grammar or context requires the reader to identify the repeated “Messiah” as the same figure, but treat the repeated “prince” as someone entirely different?
25. Know
3045therefore and understand,
7919that from
4480 the going forth
4161 of the commandment
1697to restore
7725 and to build
1129Jerusalem
3389unto
5704 the messiah4899 the prince5057 shall be seven
7651weeks,
7620 and threescore
8346 and two
8147 weeks:
7620the street
7339 shall be built[URL='https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly
Why can't it simply be determined from the text itself? But that doesn't mean we disregard relevant texts outside of these texts. These other texts would be a 2nd witness, so to speak.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
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.
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.
Notice what verse 25 plainly says---to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks
That equals 69 weeks are involved in regard unto the Messiah the Prince.
Then in verse 26 we notice this--And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself
Except we need to also consider verse 27 before deciding about when He is cutoff---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease
That means from the time that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince until He is cutoff, it involves 69 and 1/2 weeks. Once these 69 and 1/2 weeks have gone by, the Messiah the Prince has already come and has already left. Unless one has a dispute that His first coming happened. Or unless one has a dispute that His ascension back into heaven occurred shortly after he was cutoff, and that He is still bodily in heaven as we speak.
Compared with---and the people of the prince that shall come
We know this verse should be understood like such--the prince that shall come--as in a future event in relation to the first 69 and 1/2 weeks. Therefore, it is not reasonable to take the prince that shall come to be meaning the Messiah unless one has an answer for what coming of Christ took place after the first 69 and 1/2 weeks, yet prior to His bodily return in the end of this age.
I don't have an answer for that nor would anyone have an answer for that if they view the coming in Matthew 24:30 in the same manner as me, that it is meaning His bodily return in the end of this age.
No matter how you look at it, this part--the prince that shall come--involves a coming of a prince post that of the first 69 and 1/2 weeks. And if the Messiah is meant, what then in the NT explains the Messiah coming, in any sense, post the first 69 and 1/2 weeks, yet prior to His bodily return in the end of this age?
Anyone that agrees that the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah, yet takes Matthew 24:30 to be involving Christ's bodily return in the end of this age, are clearly confused about things and that no one should take any of their arguments serious that the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah when they can't even remotely prove it via the NT. Let's totally disregard that Scripture interprets Scripture. In this case let's just use speculation interprets Scripture.
You, OTOH, are not taking Matthew 24:30 to be meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age. Therefore, I'm not meaning you as well. But unless you are correct about Matthew 24:30 though, you too have zero support via the NT that the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah, since something in the NT has to explain this coming. Except you can't use Matthew 24:30 to explain this coming if you are not interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly to begin with. That would be a fallacy of some sort, to use something untrue to try and and prove something with.
Even without going outside of Daniel 9:25-27, we already know from these verses alone, the following facts.
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
That 69 and 1/2 weeks are involved and that the Messiah has already come. But in 26b it involves a prince that shall come sometime post that of the first 69 and 1/2 weeks. In this context shall come does not equal already came earlier. It means shall come in the future, sometime post the first 69 and 1/2 weeks.
You seem to have a special rule where everything should be determined from the text alone without having to go outside of the text. Which then makes one wonder what is the point of the NT if Daniel 9:25-27 alone can explain everything? Except without the NT, how would we ever know from Daniel 9:25-27 alone that after the Messiah is cutoff, He eventually bodily left the planet altogether and is still bodily gone some 2000 years later?
No way in a million years could we ever determine that from Daniel 9:25-27 alone.
Maybe your approach to theology differs from my approach? I think Scripture should interpret Scripture when possible.
Obviously, which would not include you in this case, but anyone that insists the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah, yet takes Matthew 24:30 to be meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age, does not agree that Scripture interprets Scripture. Because if they did agree, Matthew 24:30 alone would be proving to them the Messiah can't remotely be meant as the prince that shall come. Because now they have to explain what other coming recorded in the NT explains the coming meant in 26b if they still stubbornly insist the prince that shall come is meaning the Messiah.?