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".