Daniel 9:25 - the messiah the prince

[IndianaRob]

No, and I am sorry if the narrative wasn't clear. God would purposely give us two Hebrew words in the beginning of the chapter to show us the "secular" Hebrew words for "prince" ( sar).There would not be any mistake as to who these folks would be referring to. Consequently, if He were to use this same Hebrew word later in the chapter to refer to another individual, we would clearly understand it would be a secular type prince - could represent anyone. But He will never us this term again in these 4 verses.

Then, God will use the Hebrew word for prince "nagiyd" in verse 25 and it is attached to the word "Messiah." Meaning, He is speaking about Jesus, Messiah the Prince or the "Anointed One." Clearly, separating this "Prince" from a "prince."

Then, God tells us in verse 26 - the first "destructive" verse of the two destructive verses (26 & 27), that the "Messiah" will be "cut off." And, within this verse, God will not use ANY Hebrew word for prince. And it is because the Messiah is going to the cross and will take on the sin of the world. He is now being seen by God, not as Messiah the Prince, but Messiah - the suffering servant. He gave up His crown (Prince or nagiyd) in verse 25 for the cross in verse 26.

But the very next phrase in verse 26 will record the final mention of the Hebrew word that would be translated as "prince." God could select one of two words: He could have selected the "secular" word of ruler (sar) that is found in verses 6 and 8 and then we would immediately know God was referring to a secular ruler - like a Titus or some other general, etc., but He chose not to.

Instead, He purposely selected the Hebrew word for "Prince" (nagiyd) that He used just for His Messiah in verse 25 which meant "Anointed One."

So, God is telling us in verse 26, the "people of the prince (nagiyd) who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. So, who are the people - Roman army in 70 AD headed by Titus. But who is this "Prince" (nagiyd) that will come AFTER the destruction but still from within "those people?" Whoever he will be God is telling us he will not be just a secular "ruler" (sar) like a Titus type character, but one who will believe he is "anointed" (nagiyd). God is revealing that this one who is to come after the destruction of 70 AD and indeed AFTER the destruction of pagan Rome itself (Daniel 7:11 in 476 AD) will come a prince who sets himself up as though he were "anointed" by God Himself. This is the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8.

I see your point. Maybe the missing title just means He wasn't yet "Prince" at the cutting off because that title came at the resurrection?

Philippians 2:8-9 has humiliation first, then exaltation as the result.

Acts 2:36 says God "made" Him Lord and Christ after the resurrection.

So the missing title could mean He hadn't been enthroned yet, not that He gave up the crown.

 

[IndianaRob]

How is God sending His SON to die for our sins an "abomination"???

JESUS specifically sated what the "desolation" upon Israel is = Please post the verse

The murder of Jesus was the abomination David.

The murder of Jesus is why the kingdom was taken from Israel and Jerusalem was destroyed.

 

[David in NJ]

No, the only thing that would give you is the opportunity to declare that my interpretation is wrong and that is not right... I have asked you to offer your understanding, interpretation and support for your definition of the two terms that, when put together (abomination and desolation) present the only possible meaningful description for this term and can be supported by Matthew, Daniel, 2 Thessalonians 2, Revelation and Leviticus... and I am sure other verses in other books.

You are quick to declare very agressively that someone's interpretation is wrong and you do that with arrogance at times... but never offer your own support or substance ... it is your turn to provide how, and why your interpretations are to be considered and, in this case, why mine are not.

JESUS quoted Daniel = that is my understanding = exactly what JESUS and Daniel said

Now is your turn: How can JESUS/Cruicifixation be the AoD???


FYI - God's gifts for His Church/us is often considered "arrogance" by many = just as JESUS was considered as such!!!

I see your point. Maybe the missing title just means He wasn't yet "Prince" at the cutting off because that title came at the resurrection?

Philippians 2:8-9 has humiliation first, then exaltation as the result.

Acts 2:36 says God "made" Him Lord and Christ after the resurrection.

So the missing title could mean He hadn't been enthroned yet, not that He gave up the crown.

JESUS Title was in existence before Daniel's prophecy = "Prince of Peace"

 

[David in NJ]

The murder of Jesus was the abomination David.

The murder of Jesus is why the kingdom was taken from Israel and Jerusalem was destroyed.

Can you post a scripture from the NT in which "the murder of Jesus is quoted/attributed as from Daniel???

 

[IndianaRob]

JESUS quoted Daniel = that is my understanding = exactly what JESUS and Daniel said

Now is your turn: How can JESUS/Cruicifixation be the AoD???


FYI - God's gifts for His Church/us is often considered "arrogance" by many = just as JESUS was considered as such!!!

JESUS Title was in existence before Daniel's prophecy = "Prince of Peace"

Are you talking about the prophecy in Isaiah? If you are then Isaiah is prophesying that Jesus would be called Prince of Peace, it doesn’t say when he would get the title.

Acts tells us when he would be prince.

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

 

[IndianaRob]

Can you post a scripture from the NT in which "the murder of Jesus is quoted/attributed as from Daniel???

I don’t know what you mean. Do you think the murder of Jesus was not an abomination to God? Do you think the murder of Jesus is not why Jerusalem was left desolate.

Not getting on you, I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from.

 

[CTK]

I see your point. Maybe the missing title just means He wasn't yet "Prince" at the cutting off because that title came at the resurrection?

Philippians 2:8-9 has humiliation first, then exaltation as the result.

Acts 2:36 says God "made" Him Lord and Christ after the resurrection.

So the missing title could mean He hadn't been enthroned yet, not that He gave up the crown.

Certainly could be... but the first two verses are the "restorative" verses in these most powerful prophetic verses in Daniel - perhaps in all of scripture. The entire 70 weeks of years prophecy from 457 BC to 33/34 AD or a literal period of 490 years was to reveal how God would restore His people and His city back from Babylon after their total destruction.

The first 7 weeks or 49 literal years reflect the restoration of the physical elements that had to be restored - the temple, the walls, the city, etc., And these elements of restoration were specifically given by God to His people to complete. Then, we have the long period of waiting or the next 62 weeks of years or 434 literal years. These years would pass "UNTIL THE MESSIAH." Then, God will give us the final one week or the last 7 years of the 70 weeks prophecy when He would tell us in these first two verses of 24 and 25 (the two "restorative" verses), those elements that must also be fully restored. But these specific elements could not be restored by His people - only God could restore them. Thus, Jesus would begin His ministry on the first day of the 70th week and He would represent the ONLY remaining element from the Babyonian destruction that could not be restored by His people - that would be the "Presence of God" within the Sanctuary or the "Ark of the Covenant." God would restore His presence not by sending a golden wooden box holding the 10 commandments, or the manna or Aaron's staff. Instead, He would send His Messiah. Now, everything was completely restored by the presence of Jesus.

So verse 24 gives us the 6 elements that Jesus would fulfill - His God given mission on earth. In verse 25, God reveals His arrival and what will be restored - thus, the reason for calling these two verses the "restoration verses." And here is where God uses the title "Prince" or nagiyd or "Anointed One." It is at this time in His ministry that Jesus was sent as the Messiah, the "Anointed One." Now, if you look back to Daniel 7:13, you will see the verses that show the "Son of Man" returning to His Father AFTER THE CROSS. And it is within these verses when the Ancient of Days in verse 7:14 will give Jesus the Kingdom and dominion of everything.... So, Messiah the Prince in verse 9:25 means Messiah The Anointed One.

 

[IndianaRob]

Are you talking about the prophecy in Isaiah? If you are then Isaiah is prophesying that Jesus would be called Prince of Peace, it doesn’t say when he would get the title.

Acts tells us when he would be prince.

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

That just nailed something down for me. Jesus became the Prince either at the resurrection or on Pentecost which means Daniels 70 weeks was completed on resurrection day or Pentecost.

 

[CTK]

JESUS quoted Daniel = that is my understanding = exactly what JESUS and Daniel said

Now is your turn: How can JESUS/Cruicifixation be the AoD???


FYI - God's gifts for His Church/us is often considered "arrogance" by many = just as JESUS was considered as such!!!

JESUS Title was in existence before Daniel's prophecy = "Prince of Peace"

That is your idea of providing your understanding and interpretation? Let me use a term you recently used - Really?

Sorry David, I will no longer be communicating with you.. just too arrogant ...

 

[CTK]

That just nailed something down for me. Jesus became the Prince either at the resurrection or on Pentecost which means Daniels 70 weeks was completed on resurrection day or Pentecost.

Remember, Jesus went to the Jordan river on the first day of the 70th week of the prophecy. This began His ministry when He was baptized by John in the Jordan. Also, at that same time He was baptised, we saw the Holy Spirit come down on Him and then the Father Anointed Him.

 

[IndianaRob]

Remember, Jesus went to the Jordan river on the first day of the 70th week of the prophecy. This began His ministry when He was baptized by John in the Jordan. Also, at that same time He was baptised, we saw the Holy Spirit come down on Him and then the Father Anointed Him.

Yes but are you saying that’s when he became Prince?

 

[CTK]

Yes but are you saying that’s when he became Prince?

Yes, that is when He was anointed. Remember, the Hebrew word nagiyd translates to "Anointed One" but in the English translations it is written as "Prince."

 

[Davidpt]

That just nailed something down for me. Jesus became the Prince either at the resurrection or on Pentecost which means Daniels 70 weeks was completed on resurrection day or Pentecost.

You are not even remotely being logical here. Per your reasoning you are missing an entire 3.5 years. If Christ died in the midst of the week, He obviously rose in the midst of the week as well. Plus, Pentecost would also be close to the midst of the week. Pentecost certainly didn't happen 3.5 years after Christ rose. Nor did Christ rise 3.5 years after He died. Once again, you have an entire half of a week not being accounted for. The midst of the 70th week does not equal 70 completed weeks. It equals 69.5 completed weeks. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression----not 69.5 weeks instead. 70 weeks = 490 years. 69.5 weeks = 486.5 years. The latter does not fulfill all of Daniel 9:24, the former does.

Therefore, the remainder of the 70th week is recorded in the NT involving the 42 month reign of the beast, obviously.

 

[TribulationSigns]

He says the women are an allegory for the covenants. He does NOT say the city is an allegory. Hagar represents mount Sinai, and it corresponds to “the present Jerusalem” - (the Jerusalem of Paul’s day 48ad). Paul is using metonymy, a common literary trope. “The present” Jerusalem, in this instance, is the physical city in Paul’s day which represents the Mosaic law and people enslaved to it.

You're still missing the point of Paul's argument.

Yes, Paul says that Hagar and Sarah are allegorical, but you are making an unwarranted leap when you conclude that “the present Jerusalem” therefore means the physical city itself, and that Paul is merely using the city's location as metonymy.

The question is: What does “Jerusalem which now is” represent in Paul's argument?

Paul answers that immediately:

“For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”
— Galatians 4:25

Notice what Paul does not say: “Jerusalem is in bondage because its buildings are under bondage.”

He says “her children” are in bondage.

Why? Because Paul is contrasting two covenantal communities:

Jerusalem which now is → bondage → her children

versus

Jerusalem which is above → freedom → the mother of us all

The physical city is not Paul's subject. The people represented by Jerusalem are. Hello?

And your appeal to “metonymy” actually doesn't rescue your argument. If Jerusalem is being used representatively for the people and covenant order associated with it, then you have already conceded my point: Paul isn't discussing Jerusalem merely as a geographical location.

Furthermore, you cannot consistently insist that “Jerusalem which is above” is simply a physical city while simultaneously acknowledging that Paul is speaking allegorically about covenant realities. “Jerusalem above” is plainly not a discussion about the geographical coordinates of an earthly city. Paul says she is “the mother of us all.” Who are her children? Believers—the people belonging to the New Covenant.

That is exactly Paul's point.

The earthly Jerusalem represents the covenant community still associated with the Mosaic covenant and therefore characterized by bondage, while the Jerusalem above represents the covenant community belonging to Christ and characterized by freedom.

Paul's argument is confirmed by the very next verse:

“For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not...”
— Galatians 4:27

Paul applies Isaiah's prophecy to the covenant people of God. He isn't suddenly changing the subject to architecture, city walls, streets, or geographic land or your 70AD imagination!

And look at the broader New Testament language:

Philippians 3:3 — “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus...”

Romans 2:28-29 — “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly... But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly...”

Hebrews 12:22 — “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...”

The New Testament repeatedly identifies God's true covenant people by spiritual covenant identity, not merely by physical geography.

So yes, Jerusalem physically existed in Paul's day. Nobody is disputing that. That's completely irrelevant to the argument.

The question is what “Jerusalem” signifies in Paul's allegory.

And Paul himself gives us the answer:

Jerusalem which now is → bondage → her children

Jerusalem which is above → freedom → her children

That is a contrast between two covenant communities, not a lesson about two piles of buildings.

You are reading “present Jerusalem” geographically when Paul is using it covenantally and representatively.

The city is not the point.

The people belonging to the covenant represented by Jerusalem are the point.

That's why Paul says “her children.”

You cannot make stones and buildings into children.

That's the part of Paul's argument you're overlooking. Selah!

 

[David in NJ]

Are you talking about the prophecy in Isaiah? If you are then Isaiah is prophesying that Jesus would be called Prince of Peace, it doesn’t say when he would get the title.

Acts tells us when he would be prince.

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Isaiah is before Daniel

Moses is before Isaiah

Moses prophesied of the Prince of Peace under a different Name
His prophecy does not declare a 'future' naming BUT that His Name is from Eternity