Daniel 9:25 - the messiah the prince

claninja said:

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. Know3045therefore and understand,7919that from4480 the going forth4161 of the commandment1697to restore7725 and to build1129Jerusalem3389unto5704 the messiah4899 the prince5057 shall be seven7651weeks,7620 and threescore8346 and two8147 weeks:7620the street7339 shall be built1129again,7725 and the wall,2742 even in troublous6695times.6256

26 a.) And after310threescore8346 and two8147 weeks7620shall messiah4899be cut off,3772 but not369 for himself:

26 b.) and the people5971of the prince5057that shall come935shall destroy7843 the city5892and the sanctuary;6944 and the end7093thereof shall be with a flood,7858 and unto5704the end7093of the war4421desolations8074 are determined.2782

Click to expand...

Yes, they're grammatical referents.

claninja said:

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. Know3045therefore and understand,7919that from4480 the going forth4161 of the commandment1697to restore7725 and to build1129Jerusalem3389unto5704 the messiah4899 the prince5057 shall be seven7651weeks,7620 and threescore8346 and two8147 weeks:7620the street7339 shall be built1129again,7725 and the wall,2742 even in troublous6695times.6256

26 a.) And after310threescore8346 and two8147 weeks7620shall messiah4899be cut off,3772 but not369 for himself:

26 b.) and the people5971of the prince5057that shall come935shall destroy7843 the city5892and the sanctuary;6944 and the end7093thereof shall be with a flood,7858 and unto5704the end7093of the war4421desolations8074 are determined.2782

Click to expand...

No need for a new thread, the topic has been beat to death over the past month in another thread posted

claninja said:

I haven’t seen why someone would argue the messiah in 26a = the messiah in 25, while the prince in 26b doesn’t equal the prince in 25 from purely an internal grammatical/contextual standpoint.

I understand that premils will argue the prince in 26b does not equal the prince 25 because of external framework, but I’m curious as to internal contextual reasons. Can a premil confidently demonstrate with internal context/grammar why the prince in Daniel 26b is not the prince of vs 25?

Click to expand...

There is no way demonstrate who the prince is in 26b based on grammar or context.

claninja said:

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. Know3045therefore and understand,7919that from4480 the going forth4161 of the commandment1697to restore7725 and to build1129Jerusalem3389unto5704 the messiah4899 the prince5057 shall be seven7651weeks,7620 and threescore8346 and two8147 weeks:7620the street7339 shall be built1129again,7725 and the wall,2742 even in troublous6695times.6256

26 a.) And after310threescore8346 and two8147 weeks7620shall messiah4899be cut off,3772 but not369 for himself:

26 b.) and the people5971of the prince5057that shall come935shall destroy7843 the city5892and the sanctuary;6944 and the end7093thereof shall be with a flood,7858 and unto5704the end7093of the war4421desolations8074 are determined.2782

Click to expand...

You mean you cannot tell the difference between the phrase "Messiah the Prince" and the word "Messiah" in capitals, vs. the phrase "the people of the prince" with no connected "Messiah" with it? Is English not your first language?

Why would the KJV translators capitalize "Messiah" in verse 26 if they didn't think it was the same one spoken of in verse 25 as "Messiah the Prince"?

And how could "Messiah" be "cut off" at the 69th symbolic week, but come back and be "the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" when we know... that was the Roman general Titus that destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple in 70 A.D.?

The word for "prince" can mean a commander, chief, ruler, prince, etc. But "Messiah the Prince" or "Messiah" can apply ONLY to Lord Jesus Christ. And as per Bible prophecy, Jesus will destroy the sanctuary that is built by Jews for the end of THIS world, a 3rd temple, which is not present on the temple mount yet today. Those Jews in Jerusalem today already have the materials ready to build it, even the cornerstone has been cut.

Dan 9:25-27
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.
KJV

Davy said:

You mean you cannot tell the difference between the phrase "Messiah the Prince" and the word "Messiah" in capitals, vs. the phrase "the people of the prince" with no connected "Messiah" with it? Is English not your first language?

Why would the KJV translators capitalize "Messiah" in verse 26 if they didn't think it was the same one spoken of in verse 25 as "Messiah the Prince"?

Click to expand...

The original English 1611 KJV capitalized "Prince" throughout.

The English translators recognized that it referred to Messiah.

Daniel 9
25 Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall, euen in troublous times.25
26 And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.26

claninja said:

I haven’t seen why someone would argue the messiah in 26a = the messiah in 25, while the prince in 26b doesn’t equal the prince in 25 from purely an internal grammatical/contextual standpoint.

I understand that premils will argue the prince in 26b does not equal the prince 25 because of external framework, but I’m curious as to internal contextual reasons. Can a premil confidently demonstrate with internal context/grammar why the prince in Daniel 26b is not the prince of vs 25?

Click to expand...

When exactly did Jesus destroy the city of Jerusalem?

He didn't and therefore it cannot be the same prince.

claninja said:

Daniel 9 doesn’t present the identity of the prince at all. So I agree you can’t demonstrate the identity of the prince in regards to grammar or context. But that’s not really what I was asking.

Click to expand...

The 1611 translators signified that it does.

The Light said:

When exactly did Jesus destroy the city of Jerusalem?

He didn't and therefore it cannot be the same prince.

Click to expand...

Who was the ultimate Commander of the Roman armies?

covenantee said:

Who was the ultimate Commander of the Roman armies?

Click to expand...

Oh boy. You're kidding right?

claninja said:

Daniel 9 doesn’t present the identity of the prince at all. So I agree you can’t demonstrate the identity of the prince in regards to grammar or context. But that’s not really what I was asking.

Click to expand...

When exactly did Jesus destroy the city of Jerusalem?

He didn't and therefore it cannot be the same prince.

The Light said:

Oh boy. You're kidding right?

Click to expand...

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

The Commander wasn't kidding.

covenantee said:

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

The Commander wasn't kidding.

Click to expand...

According to the parable it was God, not the son that sent the armies.

Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

IndianaRob said:

According to the parable it was God, not the son that sent the armies.

Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Click to expand...

Daniel 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.

"He" was Messiah.

Davy said:

You mean you cannot tell the difference between the phrase "Messiah the Prince" and the word "Messiah" in capitals, vs. the phrase "the people of the prince" with no connected "Messiah" with it? Is English not your first language?

Why would the KJV translators capitalize "Messiah" in verse 26 if they didn't think it was the same one spoken of in verse 25 as "Messiah the Prince"?

And how could "Messiah" be "cut off" at the 69th symbolic week, but come back and be "the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" when we know... that was the Roman general Titus that destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple in 70 A.D.?

The word for "prince" can mean a commander, chief, ruler, prince, etc. But "Messiah the Prince" or "Messiah" can apply ONLY to Lord Jesus Christ. And as per Bible prophecy, Jesus will destroy the sanctuary that is built by Jews for the end of THIS world, a 3rd temple, which is not present on the temple mount yet today. Those Jews in Jerusalem today already have the materials ready to build it, even the cornerstone has been cut.

Click to expand...

Well, let's see...

Revelation 1:5

• "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

(Notice no capitalization of prince--but I digress) Christ is the King of these kings of the earth, the Prince or ruler of kings. Christ, whom the church "represents." These are the same kings who stand far off from this city because they are the few who can see (Matthew 24:15-16) her abomination and her burning.

Also there is no capitalization in the original Hebrew, so their whole argument is contrived. If they want to take this unsound tactic, tell them that in the original Hebrew of Daniel 9:25-26 there is no capitalization of the word messiah (anointed) as is found in our translations of this passage. Of course, like so many professing Christians looking for an avenue to get around the truth and justify their doctrines, they only serve to show themselves to be void of understanding these matters. The original it reads this way:

Daniel 9:25

• "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto anointed leader shall be seven weeks; and threescore and two weeks: the wide places shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times."

Notice no capitalization on Messiah/Anointed. So frankly, their whole argument is built upon nothing. It's a non argument, argument.

From what I see so far here is basically just a regurgitation of things already covered. Some people are always seeking some way to justify their own personal beliefs, whether through the Greek or Hebrew (or capitalization) in order to re-interpret passages that otherwise contradict their views. To some, this is almost like a profession or even a game. That is not to say we can't learn from the Hebrew. On the contrary, I do all the time. But that is to say we can't be seeking to always "mold" it to fit our personal presuppositions or views we already hold.

The Light said:

When exactly did Jesus destroy the city of Jerusalem?

He didn't and therefore it cannot be the same prince.

Click to expand...

Dan 9:26
(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.

The passage does not say that Christ Himself would destroy the physical city. Rather, it says, "the people of the prince that shall come" would destroy the city and the sanctuary. I understand these to be His people, the Lord's congregation.

Didn't Christ warn the Jews?

Joh 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

It was the Jews who destroyed the temple of Christ's body. In doing so, the kingdom was taken from them and given to another through Christ's death and resurrection on the third day. Like many people today, the Jews at that time did not understand the spiritual nature of God's Word, the true identity of the holy temple, or what Christ meant by raising it again in three days.

Therefore, I believe the "prince" in Daniel 9:26 is the same Prince introduced earlier in the chapter—Messiah the Prince. The context of Daniel 9 is centered on God, His Messiah, and His covenant people, Israel. There is no indication in the passage that a separate future "evil prince" suddenly enters the prophecy. The text naturally continues speaking about the same Prince already identified as the Messiah.

covenantee said:

Daniel 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.

"He" was Messiah.

Click to expand...

Jesus used that same desolate language himself in Matthew 23:38 when he said "your house is left unto you desolate," speaking over Jerusalem and its people. So I take "it" the same way, the house left desolate.

And the consummation is when God sent the armies in to destroy the city, which is the picture Jesus gave in Matthew 22:7 where the king sends his armies and burns their city.

IDK, but I know the parable has to match Daniels account.

IndianaRob said:

Jesus used that same desolate language himself in Matthew 23:38 when he said "your house is left unto you desolate," speaking over Jerusalem and its people. So I take "it" the same way, the house left desolate.

And the consummation is when God sent the armies in to destroy the city, which is the picture Jesus gave in Matthew 22:7 where the king sends his armies and burns their city.

IDK, but I know the parable has to match Daniels account.

Click to expand...

Daniel 9:27
"He", Messiah, confirmed the New Covenant with many for one week.
"He", Messiah, caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease through His death in the midst of the week.
"He", Messiah, made Jerusalem and the temple desolate.