Daniel 9:25 - the messiah the prince

[TribulationSigns]

You claim that the temple was Christ's body.

No, I did not merely "claim" this. The inspired text itself explicitly states it: "But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). The interpretation is not my invention, nor is it a spiritualized guess. The Holy Spirit through John tells us exactly what Jesus meant. If you reject that identification, you are not arguing against my interpretation—you are arguing against the inspired explanation given by Scripture itself.

So I merely substituted your claim for the plain words of Inspired Scripture.

This is a false accusation. I did not replace Scripture; I followed Scripture. John himself moves from the literal temple misunderstanding of the Jews to the true meaning of Christ's words. The Jews understood Jesus' statement according to the immediate physical context, but John tells us they misunderstood Him: "But he spake of the temple of his body." The "plain words" of Scripture include verse 21. You cannot isolate Jesus' statement while ignoring the inspired commentary that follows it.

The resulting context is your context, not mine.

No, the context belongs to the Holy Spirit, not to either of us. The context is determined by the whole passage, not by the assumptions of the reader. The Jews' interpretation was based on the physical temple, but John's inspired explanation reveals that their understanding was incomplete. The question is not whether the Jews initially thought Jesus meant Herod's temple—the text tells us they did. The question is whether they understood Him correctly. John clearly says they did not.

So you're complaining about the Scripture without your context, and your're complaining about the Scripture with your context.

This is a meaningless accusation because I am not complaining about Scripture at all. I am pointing out that you are stopping at the same misunderstanding the Jews had. The Jews appealed to the physical temple because they did not understand the spiritual reality Christ was revealing. The very error John records is that they interpreted Christ's words only according to the earthly structure standing before them.

Such is the nonsense resulting when your gnostified hyperspiritualizations are substituted for the inerrant words of Inspired Scripture..

Calling something "gnostic" does not make it so. Gnosticism denies the goodness of creation and rejects the incarnation of Christ. But identifying Christ's body as the true temple is not Gnosticism—it is the explicit teaching of the New Testament. In fact, refusing to see Christ as the fulfillment of the temple imagery risks doing the opposite: clinging to the shadow while ignoring the reality.

Jesus Himself taught that the temple pointed beyond itself: "I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple" (Matthew 12:6). The author of Hebrews likewise explains that the earthly sanctuary was a "shadow of heavenly things" (Hebrews 8:5). Recognizing fulfillment is not "hyperspiritualization"; it is biblical interpretation.

The real problem is not that I have spiritualized Scripture. The problem is that you have accepted the Jews' initial misunderstanding as the final meaning, while the inspired apostle explicitly corrects that misunderstanding. Ouches!

The plain reading of John 2 is not merely "Jesus spoke about a physical building." The plain reading includes the inspired explanation: "He spake of the temple of His body."

Deal with it. Selah!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

That is simply not true. It's talking about a prince who was to come at some point in the future from the time the prophecy was given. Nothing in the text says that the prince that shall come had to come some time after the first 69 and 1/2 weeks. I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion, but I'm not seeing any basis for it at all. The text does not say that the prince who shall come would come after the Messiah comes.

 

[jeffweeder]

No, I did not merely "claim" this. The inspired text itself explicitly states it: "But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). The interpretation is not my invention, nor is it a spiritualized guess. The Holy Spirit through John tells us exactly what Jesus meant. If you reject that identification, you are not arguing against my interpretation—you are arguing against the inspired explanation given by Scripture itself.

Jesus raised the temple in 3 days long before the Physical one was destroyed. They just didnt have eyes to see that the temple was all about him. His presence would dwell else where...in those that believe on him.

There is no doubt the Olivet discourse speaks of the physical temples future destruction in 70AD as Jesus taught his already born again presence filled disciples this.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Jesus raised the temple in 3 days long before the Physical one was destroyed. They just didnt have eyes to see that the temple was all about him. His presence would dwell else where...in those that believe on him.

There is no doubt the Olivet discourse speaks of the physical temples future destruction in 70AD as Jesus taught his already born again presence filled disciples this.

The problem with your argument is that you are still treating the temple as primarily a physical structure, while Jesus Himself had already revealed that the true Temple was His body. John does not leave us guessing: “But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). That is not my interpretation—it is the Holy Spirit’s explanation through Scripture.

You say, “Jesus raised the temple in three days long before the physical one was destroyed.” Exactly. Because the point was never about stones and architecture. The physical temple was only a shadow pointing to Christ. “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands…” (Hebrews 9:11). The earthly temple was temporary; Christ is the fulfillment.

The mistake is assuming Matthew 24:1–2 is simply Jesus predicting the demolition of a Jewish building. The disciples were looking at the outward glory of the temple, but Jesus was announcing the judgment and removal of the Old Covenant order. Which occur at the Cross WHEN CHRIST WAS CUTOFF!

Jesus had already said, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43). He was not merely talking about bricks falling down; He was declaring that the covenant privileges of unbelieving Israel were being taken away!

Furthermore, when Jesus spoke of His coming and gathering His elect, He said: “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds” (Matthew 24:31). That is not language about a construction project or a building collapse. It is covenantal and spiritual language concerning His kingdom.

So the irony is that you say people “didn’t have eyes to see that the temple was all about Him,” but then you return to focusing on the physical temple instead of the reality to which it pointed. LOL! The very thing Jesus was revealing is that the old shadow was passing away because the true Temple had arrived.

The question is not whether stones were eventually removed in A.D. 70. The question is whether we understand what Christ was actually teaching: the earthly temple was never the final dwelling place of God. Christ "IS" the Temple, and those united to Him become the dwelling place of God (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21–22).

Scripture already gave us the interpretation: “He spake of the temple of his body.” When the Holy Spirit explains the symbol, we should not replace His explanation with speculation about a building.

 

[jeffweeder]

The problem with your argument is that you are still treating the temple as primarily a physical structure, while Jesus Himself had already revealed that the true Temple was His body.

That is what I said.

That doesn't negate the fact that Jesus was speaking of the physical Temple in Matt 24.
Do you think Jesus was saying what he had raised in 3 days would be destroyed?
How can that be?

 

[covenantee]

No, I did not merely "claim" this. The inspired text itself explicitly states it: "But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). The interpretation is not my invention, nor is it a spiritualized guess. The Holy Spirit through John tells us exactly what Jesus meant. If you reject that identification, you are not arguing against my interpretation—you are arguing against the inspired explanation given by Scripture itself.

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into His body of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in His body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

1. Jesus was already in His body. Why did He go into His body again?
2. Why had He allowed them that sold and bought, into His body?

 

[claninja]

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.


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.?

First things first, the NT NOWHERE explains the meaning of Daniel 9. Any such use of external framework or comparing NT passages you personally think are similar and maybe explain it, are purely speculation interpreting scripture, same goes for me.

That being said, if we examine only the Masoretic Text of Daniel 9:27, the phrase “he shall make a strong covenant” contains a pronoun whose antecedent could refer either to the Messiah or to the prince mentioned in Daniel 9:26. If we are honest about the Hebrew grammar, the text itself does not identify the antecedent with absolute certainty. If one prefers a strict proximity argument, however, the nearest antecedent is “prince,” making him the more likely grammatical referent. Nevertheless, nothing in the grammar or immediate context requires the prince of verse 26b to be a separate and distinct figure from “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25. The assertion that Daniel necessarily refers to two different princes is therefore an interpretive conclusion based on a particular theological framework, not a grammatical necessity demanded by the Hebrew text.

In contrast, the Old Greek Septuagint makes a stronger distinction between the figure in verse 26b and “the Christ, the Prince” of verse 25. In the Greek text, the relevant clause reads:

• “The kingdom of the nations will destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ.”

This construction presents the Christ as being associated with the destruction rather than identifying Him as the agent who performs it or as the ruler responsible for it.

Furthermore, in verse 27, the Old Greek differs significantly from the Masoretic Text. The subject of the verb is not a personal pronoun referring back to either the Christ or the prince; rather, the text presents the covenant itself as the grammatical subject. It states that the covenant will prevail or remain in force for many. Therefore, unlike the Masoretic Text, the Old Greek does not contain an ambiguous masculine pronoun in verse 27 whose antecedent must be identified.

The Theodotion Greek text, however, differs from both the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek in verse 26b:

• “[He] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the coming prince.”

Grammatically, this construction also contains an implied subject, since the verb διαφθερεῖ (“he shall destroy”) does not explicitly state who performs the action. The nearest explicit nominative subject is the anointed one from the preceding clause (χρῖσμα), making him the strongest grammatical candidate for the implied subject. The phrase “the coming prince” (τῷ ἡγουμένῳ τῷ ἐρχομένῳ) is in the dative case and functions with σύν (“with”), indicating association rather than agency. Therefore, on a strictly grammatical reading, Theodotion most naturally presents the anointed one as the implied subject who destroys the city and sanctuary together with the coming prince.

As for verse 27 in Theodotion, the phrase “he shall confirm a covenant” (καὶ δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς) likewise does not provide an explicit subject. The antecedent must be inferred from the context. The possible candidates are the previously mentioned figures—the coming prince or the anointed one/Christ—but the Greek text itself does not explicitly identify which figure is intended.

So, regarding the identity of the prince, the Masoretic Text does not provide a clear grammatical or contextual distinction requiring that the prince in verse 26b be a different figure from “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25. The argument that these are two separate princes is therefore based on interpretation rather than an explicit grammatical distinction within the text itself.

In contrast, the Theodotion Greek text creates a clearer distinction between the “coming prince” of verse 26b and “the Christ, the Prince” of verse 25 by using different constructions and terminology. Additionally, the Old Greek text does not mention a prince at all in verse 26b; instead, it replaces the figure with “the kingdom of the nations,” presenting the destruction of the city and sanctuary in connection with that kingdom rather than with a distinct prince figure.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That doesn't negate the fact that Jesus was speaking of the physical Temple in Matt 24.

Do you think Jesus was saying what he had raised in 3 days would be destroyed?
How can that be?

This clearly show that you do not know what you are talking about. No Scripture support whatoever. The problem is that you are still assuming the very thing that needs to be proven. You keep saying Jesus was speaking about the physical temple in Matthew 24, but you have not demonstrated that from the text. You are simply repeating the assumption.

In John 2, the Holy Spirit already settled the meaning of the temple symbol: “But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). Jesus was not talking about a building made of stones; He was revealing Himself as the true Temple. The physical temple was only a shadow and a type pointing to Christ.

Your question, “Do you think Jesus was saying what He had raised in three days would be destroyed?” reveals the confusion. No, Jesus was not saying His resurrected body would be destroyed. That is a misunderstanding of the symbolism. The disciples did not understand at first because they were thinking about a physical building, but John tells us what Jesus meant after the resurrection.

The irony is that you are making the same mistake the Jews made in John 2. They heard “temple” and immediately thought of a structure: “Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?” (John 2:20). They misunderstood because they were focused on stones. John then corrects that misunderstanding: “But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:21).

Likewise, in Matthew 24, the disciples showed Jesus the buildings of the temple, and Jesus responded with judgment language: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another” (Matthew 24:2). But the subject is not merely architecture. Christ was announcing the end of the Old Covenant order—the removal of the former temple system that had rejected Him. The physical destruction was not the meaning of the prophecy; it was the outward manifestation of the greater spiritual judgment.

You are confusing the sign with the reality. The destruction of stones is not the same thing as the destruction of the true Temple, which is Christ. The shadow can pass away while the reality remains.

Hebrews makes this clear: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…” (Hebrews 10:1). The earthly temple was a shadow. Christ is the substance.

So the issue is not that Jesus raised a temple in three days and then said it would be destroyed. That argument only works if you confuse the shadow with the fulfillment. Jesus never said His resurrected body would be destroyed. He said the old temple system would be judged because the true Temple had arrived.

Selah!