linking the AoD of Dan 9 and the O.D.

[Randy Kluth]

There is strong evidence that a majority of early Church Fathers saw Dan 9 and its Abomination of Desolation (AoD) linked to the AoD of Jesus' Olivet Discourse. The Church Fathers, as a majority, saw the AoD in Dan 9 and in the Olivet Discourse as the same, identifying it as the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

They indicated as such by referencing the time of the earthly ministry of Christ, followed by the Roman desolation of the Temple and Jerusalem in that general era. I am providing some of the evidence below.

Exceptions to this time frame for the AoD are Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who saw the AoD as the Antichrist, though they still linked the AoD of Dan 9 with the AoD of the Olivet Discourse. But generally, the Church Fathers saw the AoD of Dan 9 and the AoD of Matt 24 as the same AoD, representing the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD by the Roman Army.

Here Africanus saw the 70 Weeks as completed in the time of Christ...

https://www.biblestudytools.com/hist...africanus.html
Sextes Julius Africanus (180-250)
The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus.16

"It is by calculating from Artaxerxes, therefore, up to the time of Christ that the seventy weeks are made up, according to the numeration of the Jews."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here Tertullian refers to Daniel's prophecy of the 70 Weeks, which is followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the time following the ministry of Christ. I would assume that Tertullian here is identifying the AoD of Dan 9 with the AoD of the Olivet Discourse?...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian08.html
Tertullian (155-240)
AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS.
CHAP. VIII.--OF THE TIMES OF CHRIST'S BIRTH AND PASSION, AND OF JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION.

"Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin." And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His.
...Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are made lii years, vi months. For he reigned xi years. And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx hebdomads predicted in Daniel."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here Origen also views the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as being fulfiled in the time of Christ. That would seem to make the Olivet Discourse and its AoD a fulfillment of Dan 9?...

Origen (184-253)
DE PRINCIPIIS

"And according to Daniel, seventy weeks were fulfilled until (the coming of) Christ the Ruler."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) also saw Daniel's 70th Week and the AoD as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in the time after Jesus' ministry. Again, this would identify the AoD of the Olivet Discourse with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 1, chapter 21 http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ata-book1.html
In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irenaeus (180 AD) quotes Matthew 24.15 and discusses the Antichrist, and identifies him as the AoD of both Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. Irenaeus mentions both the "Week" of Dan 9 and the being "put to flight" of the Olivet Discourse, thus identifying Antichrist as the AoD in both passages. He does differ, however, from other Church Fathers in denying this is in the time of Christ's earthly ministry.

Against Heresies Book 5.25.4
And then he [Daniel] points out the time that his [Antichrist s] tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.

 

[ewq1938]

It's common to confuse a shadow or type of a prophecy as the fulfillment of the prophecy. Only hindsight can accurately tell the difference and even then it still confuses some.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There are a number who do not realize there is one AoD in Dan 9 and another AoD in Dan 11 (among others). The Dan 9 AoD is, I believe, the Roman Army, and the Dan 11 AoD is Antiochus 4.

And some do not realize that when Matthew and Mark reference Daniel in the Olivet Discourse they are referencing the AoD in Dan 9...

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand...
Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Clearly, the AoD in the Olivet Discourse is linked to the AoD of Dan 9.27, which pinpoints the timeframe as the generation in which Jesus was "cut off" by the Roman leader. Irenaeus and Hippolytus saw the AoD as futurists do today, as the Antichrist who sits in a future temple. But the vast majority of the Church Fathers believed the true AoD time frame of Dan 9 and of the Olivet Discourse was the generation in which Jesus was cut off. That's what I'm trying to show in this thread.

I believe it was the Roman leader--not one specific leader, but generally *a Roman leader*--who "confirmed a covenant" in the 70th Week. I used to believe this was Jesus confirming the New Covenant, but that no longer makes sense to me. The ruler who confirms the covenant "confirms" it, and doesn't *make* it!

And the pronoun fits the earlier mentioned "ruler to come" who leads a people to destroy the city and the sanctuary--the Roman Army. So all of this is talking about the Roman general--whoever is in charge at the time--who indirectly puts an end to Temple sacrifice in the midst of the 70th Week by condemning Christ to death, and who later brings destruction to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come [the Roman Army] will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He [the Roman Ruler] will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it [the Temple].

Daniel mentions another AoD in Dan 11, showing a relationship between the two AoDs. Both lead an armed attack against Jerusalem. Both murder many thousands of Jews. Both offend the Temple area with their idols, and self-adulation.

The Syrians put an idol of Jupiter in the Temple area and had an image of Antiochus depicted as divine. The Roman soldiers carried standards with idolatrous eagles on them, and paraded around the holy city of Jerusalem desecrating the "holy place."

Dan 11.31 “His armed forces [Antiochus' Army] will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God [the Maccabees] will firmly resist him."

The covenant that is "confirmed" by the Roman ruler is the covenant of Law, containing a curse upon the Hebrew People for failing to keep the Law. In the event they apostacized from this covenant, God promised to destroy them and to send them away into exile.

Deut 31.26 Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.

The Roman ruler confirmed this by cutting off their Messiah, ending the validity of animal sacrifice in the midst of the 70th Week. There was no need to complete the 70th Week, since it was fulfilled in the midst of that Week.

It's taken me many years to get to this understanding, in part as I've explored questions arising on these forums, and in part asking others questions criticizing my views. For now, I'm happy that it meets all of the demands of my previous concerns. And I intended to show that the Church Fathers roughly held more to this view than how many futurists see it today (though I consider myself a futurist).

The 70 Weeks Prophecy and the Olivet Discourse are positively related, and both are to be historically interpreted as taking place in the time of Christ's earthly ministry and immediately following. This is, at least, how the majority of the Church Fathers saw it.

The futurist view of Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who were friends, has been taken up by modern futurists who wish to view these passages in a future way, applying to Antichrist who takes his seat in the temple of God. Again, this is not the traditional view, though I certainly still believe in a future Antichrist, based on Dan 7.

 

[covenantee]

I believe it was the Roman leader--not one specific leader, but generally *a Roman leader*--who "confirmed a covenant" in the 70th Week. I used to believe this was Jesus confirming the New Covenant, but that no longer makes sense to me. The ruler who confirms the covenant "confirms" it, and doesn't *make* it!

Via grammatical referent/antecedent, the "he" who confirms the covenant refers back to Messiah.

You were right originally.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Via grammatical referent/antecedent, the "he" who confirms the covenant refers back to Messiah.

You were right originally.

Actually my brother and I discussed this, and it was due to the reference back to the ruler to come that the "he" goes. That's why I changed my mind, after many years of thinking the "he" was Christ.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.

As you can see, the antecedent is the "ruler who will come," though the emphasis is on the Army that will destroy the city and the sanctuary. But then "he" confirms a covenant for one Week, puts an end to sacrifice and offering, and sets up an AoD at the temple, until the temple comes to an end.

Today it makes much more sense reading it this way than the way I did for many years up until fairly recently. And it was this discussion over the antecedent that changed my mind.

For years I could not see that the Ruler to Come could do all these things and just dismissed it out of hand. For one thing, more than one Roman General showed up at Jerusalem, Cestius Gallus and Titus. And it was Pontius Pilate who may have ended animal sacrifice for the Jews by having Jesus put to death.

So what could possibly be the thing that did all of these things? Well, if we see the "ruler" as a generalized Roman leader, then any Roman leader could fulfill each one of these things. No matter who, specifically, it was in each instance, it was still the "Ruler to come.," ie a Roman leader.

I've thought that the 4th Kingdom to come was Rome, and that this "Ruler to come" was various forms of this 4th Kingdom to come. Anyway, it was Rome who led these armies against Jerusalem and the Temple. And it was Rome who confirmed the covenant of judgment under the Law by bringing upon Israel the curse of the Law. And it was Rome who ended animal sacrifice by having Messiah cut off as a replacement sacrifice for the purpose of Grace. And it was Rome who put the Roman Army, the AoD, in position encircling Jerusalem, laying siege against it, and ultimately destroying it.

This may not work for you. But after years of trying different things, I listened to my brother's criticism about how I was using or not using the proper antecedents. My brother does not tend to take a position on controversial passages. He's more into language than interpretation. But he made a point that I need to get the pronouns right.

 

[covenantee]

Actually my brother and I discussed this, and it was due to the reference back to the ruler to come that the "he" goes. That's why I changed my mind, after many years of thinking the "he" was Christ.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.

As you can see, the antecedent is the "ruler who will come," though the emphasis is on the Army that will destroy the city and the sanctuary. But then "he" confirms a covenant for one Week, puts an end to sacrifice and offering, and sets up an AoD at the temple, until the temple comes to an end.

Today it makes much more sense reading it this way than the way I did for many years up until fairly recently. And it was this discussion over the antecedent that changed my mind.

For years I could not see that the Ruler to Come could do all these things and just dismissed it out of hand. For one thing, more than one Roman General showed up at Jerusalem, Cestius Gallus and Titus. And it was Pontius Pilate who may have ended animal sacrifice for the Jews by having Jesus put to death.

So what could possibly be the thing that did all of these things? Well, if we see the "ruler" as a generalized Roman leader, then any Roman leader could fulfill each one of these things. No matter who, specifically, it was in each instance, it was still the "Ruler to come.," ie a Roman leader.

I've thought that the 4th Kingdom to come was Rome, and that this "Ruler to come" was various forms of this 4th Kingdom to come. Anyway, it was Rome who led these armies against Jerusalem and the Temple. And it was Rome who confirmed the covenant of judgment under the Law by bringing upon Israel the curse of the Law. And it was Rome who ended animal sacrifice by having Messiah cut off as a replacement sacrifice for the purpose of Grace. And it was Rome who put the Roman Army, the AoD, in position encircling Jerusalem, laying siege against it, and ultimately destroying it.

This may not work for you. But after years of trying different things, I listened to my brother's criticism about how I was using or not using the proper antecedents. My brother does not tend to take a position on controversial passages. He's more into language than interpretation. But he made a point that I need to get the pronouns right.

I don't think you'll find any ECF or recognized historical exegete who considers "he" who confirms the covenant to be a Roman leader.

The ruler (prince) who came was Messiah the Prince (Daniel 9:25), via referent/antecedent.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't think you'll find any ECF or recognized historical exegete who considers "he" who confirms the covenant to be a Roman leader.

The ruler (prince) who came was Messiah the Prince (Daniel 9:25), via referent/antecedent.

I really don't know--I'd have to research it. But I do know that a good number of Christians have thought that the "he" is the Antichrist. If so, that isn't much different than seeing the "he" as the Roman ruler.

 

[covenantee]

I really don't know--I'd have to research it. But I do know that a good number of Christians have thought that the "he" is the Antichrist. If so, that isn't much different than seeing the "he" as the Roman ruler.

"He" as the Antichrist in Daniel 9:27 is an exclusive product of 19th-century Darby/Scofield dispensational futurism.

Unknown in the historical true Christian Church before then.

Fails simple grammar referent/antecedent test, not to mention Scripture, history, and logic.

As does any hermeneutic which claims that "he" is anyone other than Messiah.

If the antecedent of "he" is the "ruler who will come", then the antecedent of "the ruler who will come" is "Messiah the Ruler".

And thus "he" is "Messiah the Ruler".

 

[Randy Kluth]

"He" as the Antichrist in Daniel 9:27 is an exclusive product of 19th-century Darby/Scofield dispensational futurism.

Unknown in the historical true Christian Church before then.

Fails simple grammar referent/antecedent test, not to mention Scripture, history, and logic.

As does any hermeneutic which claims that "he" is anyone other than Messiah.

If the antecedent of "he" is the "ruler who will come", then the antecedent of "the ruler who will come" is "Messiah the Ruler".

And thus "he" is "Messiah the Ruler".

Sorry, I don't believe that to be true. But it is difficult for me to prove. I do believe we should look into Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Appolinaris.

For example, consider how Hippolytus views the 70th Week and its covenant--it is a future Week and not possibly associated with the Covenant of Christ. This is *not* Dispensationalism, but an early Church Father.

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.
43. With respect, then, to the particular judgment in the torments that are to come upon it in the last times by the hand of the tyrants who shall arise then, the clearest statement has been given in these passages. But it becomes us further diligently to examine and set forth the period at which these things shall come to pass, and how the little horn shall spring up in their midst. For when the legs of iron have issued in the feet and toes, according to the similitude of the image and that of the terrible beast, as has been shown in the above, (then shall be the time) when the iron and the clay shall be mingled together. Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, "And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease." By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations.

CLICK

 

[covenantee]

Sorry, I don't believe that to be true. But it is difficult for me to prove. I do believe we should look into Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Appolinaris.

For example, consider how Hippolytus views the 70th Week and its covenant--it is a future Week and not possibly associated with the Covenant of Christ. This is *not* Dispensationalism, but an early Church Father.

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.
43. With respect, then, to the particular judgment in the torments that are to come upon it in the last times by the hand of the tyrants who shall arise then, the clearest statement has been given in these passages. But it becomes us further diligently to examine and set forth the period at which these things shall come to pass, and how the little horn shall spring up in their midst. For when the legs of iron have issued in the feet and toes, according to the similitude of the image and that of the terrible beast, as has been shown in the above, (then shall be the time) when the iron and the clay shall be mingled together. Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, "And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease." By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations.

CLICK

How do you explain the grammar? How can it be identifying "he" as anyone other than Messiah?


Irenaeus did not attempt an explanation of the covenant.

Hippolytus' messages were mixed:
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME
THE EXTANT WORKS AND FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS.
And in like manner Gabriel says: "To blot out transgressions, and make reconciliation for sins." But who has blotted out our transgressions? Paul the apostle teaches us, saying, "He is our peace who made both one;" and then, "Blotting out the handwriting of sins that was against us."
16. That transgressions, therefore, are blotted out, and that reconciliation is made for sins, is shown by this. But who are they who have reconciliation made for their sins, but they who believe on His name, and propitiate His countenance by good works? And that after the return of the people from Babylon there was a space of 434 years, until the time of the birth of Christ, may be easily understood. For, since the first covenant was given to the children of Israel after a period of 434 years, it follows that the second covenant also should be defined by the same space of time, in order that it might be expected by the people and easily recognised by the faithful.
17. And for this reason Gabriel says: "And to anoint the Most Holy." And the Most Holy is none else but the Son of God alone...

Hippolytus was preceded by Clement of Alexandria. His messages were not mixed:
Clement of Alexandria
The Stromata, or Miscellanies
From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation."

Jerome quotes Apollinarius:
And thus it shall come to pass that the middle of the week shall mark the confirmation of God's covenant with the saints, and the middle of the week in turn shall mark the issuing of the decree under the authority of Antichrist that no more sacrifices be offered.

Apollinarius associates the cessation of sacrifices with Antichrist, but he associates the covenant and its confirmation with God and the saints.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How do you explain the grammar? How can it be identifying "he" as anyone other than Messiah?


Irenaeus did not attempt an explanation of the covenant.

Hippolytus' messages were mixed:
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME
THE EXTANT WORKS AND FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS.
And in like manner Gabriel says: "To blot out transgressions, and make reconciliation for sins." But who has blotted out our transgressions? Paul the apostle teaches us, saying, "He is our peace who made both one;" and then, "Blotting out the handwriting of sins that was against us."
16. That transgressions, therefore, are blotted out, and that reconciliation is made for sins, is shown by this. But who are they who have reconciliation made for their sins, but they who believe on His name, and propitiate His countenance by good works? And that after the return of the people from Babylon there was a space of 434 years, until the time of the birth of Christ, may be easily understood. For, since the first covenant was given to the children of Israel after a period of 434 years, it follows that the second covenant also should be defined by the same space of time, in order that it might be expected by the people and easily recognised by the faithful.
17. And for this reason Gabriel says: "And to anoint the Most Holy." And the Most Holy is none else but the Son of God alone...

Hippolytus was preceded by Clement of Alexandria. His messages were not mixed:
Clement of Alexandria
The Stromata, or Miscellanies
From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation."

Jerome quotes Apollinarius:
And thus it shall come to pass that the middle of the week shall mark the confirmation of God's covenant with the saints, and the middle of the week in turn shall mark the issuing of the decree under the authority of Antichrist that no more sacrifices be offered.

Apollinarius associates the cessation of sacrifices with Antichrist, but he associates the covenant and its confirmation with God and the saints.

I honestly don't know. I would be fine if the "he" referred to the Messiah, and I find that possible. Obviously, I held to that view for most of my life.

What I couldn't get around, however, is that the pronoun usually follows the antecedent, which appears to be the "ruler to come." And so, the "covenant" may very well be a covenant "with God's People." It's just that if the "ruler to come" is the proper antecedent, and he is a negative figure--not Christ, then the covenant he is confirming is the negative aspect of God's covenant with His people, the Jews. It would be the curses of Mt. Ebal, and not the blessings of Mt. Gerazim.

We tend to look at the "confirmation of the Covenant" as an active deliberate act on the part of the "he," as if he is actually *initiating* a Covenant. But since the Covenant of Law previously existed, this is just being passively and indirectly confirmed--not initiated. And in the time of Christ, if it is being "confirmed" as previously existing in the form of God's Law, then it is a negative with respect to the Jews.
It would be confirming the *failure* of the Jews under the Law in the time of Christ.

It would be a positive only if a *new covenant" was being implement by Christ. But that does not appear to be the case since this covenant is only being confirmed as previously existing.

I know about Clement and the many Church Fathers who saw the "70th Week Covenant" as Christ's Covenant. But Irenaeus and Hippolytus see the 70th Week, which is the "covenant" being referred to, as associated with Antichrist. I don't know how they can see the 70th Week as referring to the Reign of Antichrist without seeing the Covenant as being something other than the New Covenant? And Apollinarius appears to see the 70th Week cessation of sacrifices as an Antichristian event, which would be the same, it seems, as placing the 70th Week Covenant in the context of Antichrist.

The difficulty seems to be that some of this is about as clear as mud to me. I'm still working at it, but for now I'm considering the possibility that this is the Covenant of Law, which being confirmed in the time of Christ is meant to be a negative for the Jews, ie the curses leading to the Great NT Tribulation of the Jews. Their Temple sacrifices are no longer effectual for the purpose of serving to perpetuate God's covenant of blessings with the Jewish People. Since Christ was "cut off," the sacrifices were dispensed with.

But again, I'm flexible--not a hill I'm going to die on. Thanks for your viewpoint, and for backing it up.

 

[covenantee]

It's just that if the "ruler to come" is the proper antecedent, and he is a negative figure--not Christ

The antecedent/referent of the "ruler to come" is "Messiah the Ruler"; thus the "ruler to come" is Messiah i.e. Christ.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I don't know how they can see the 70th Week as referring to the Reign of Antichrist without seeing the Covenant as being something other than the New Covenant?

They fail to see that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (destroyed by Titus, an antichrist, an abomination who caused desolation) as a separate time period alluded to, but not part of the 70 weeks already fulfilled by Christ.
"And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
(This is just an allusion to 70 AD, a parenthethical citation not within the 70 weeks timeline)
"The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined."
(Also alluding to the destruction /desolation of Jerusalem).
Daniel 9 was history.
This does not mean that another abomination causing desolation will be evident in the coming Great Tribulation.
This is how Satan works, destroying places of worship, disgraceful acts, murder ...
I've been hearing talk of a new Temple being prepared for twenty years. Pre-Tribbers are stuck on that being an essential element in the scenario. Is it necessary? I don't think so. Christ will build a Millennial Kingdom Temple.

 

[covenantee]

They fail to see that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (destroyed by Titus, an antichrist, an abomination who caused desolation)

That is partially correct; Titus was the leader of the Roman armies which were the abomination of desolation. (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20)

He was not an antichrist, as he and his armies were Messiah's instruments and agents of judgment and destruction upon the nation of Israel. He acknowledged divine intervention for his military success.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

That is partially correct; Titus was the leader of the Roman armies which were the abomination of desolation. (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20)

He was not an antichrist, as he and his armies were Messiah's instruments and agents of judgment and destruction upon the nation of Israel. He acknowledged divine intervention for his military success.

Titus killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, some were Christian Jews. Some estimates haven't at 1.1 million. He enslaved 100,000. Quite a murderer of people.
Yes, all do God's punishment ... even Satan. GOD IS SOVEREIGN.
But either you are a Christian or not. If you are not, you are against Christ. Besides that, if we apply the scripture, "Those who curse you will be cursed", Titus was cursed and died young, 40 years old. He was an emperor for only years.

 

[covenantee]

Titus killed hundreds of thousands of Jews

Under the command and control of Messiah.

some were Christian Jews

All of the Christians escaped. Matthew 24:16

 

[Randy Kluth]

The antecedent/referent of the "ruler to come" is "Messiah the Ruler"; thus the "ruler to come" is Messiah i.e. Christ.

But that's the question for me--you're begging the question and just making an assertion. How can you say Messiah is the "ruler to come" when the antecedent prior to the pronoun "he" is the "ruler to come." Are you saying that the "ruler to come" is the Messiah?

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

The "Anointed One" in bold above we all agree is the Messiah. So the context of this entire scenario is for me and for the Church Fathers the time of Messiah, when he was "cut off," the sacrificial system was ended, and the AoD was set as a siege against the Temple and against Jerusalem. This leads me to think the series of pronouns "he," in bold and underscored, refers back to "the ruler who will come" in bold and underscored. Either Messiah did all of those things or the Ruler to Come did?

The Ruler to Come makes more sense to me because he...
1) destroyed the city and the sanctuary
2) confirmed the covenant of Law by judging Israel's failure under that system
3) ended animal sacrifices and offerings under the Law by dispossessing Israel of Christ, and later of the city and the Temple
4) set up an abomination that causes desolation, namely the Roman Army besieging Jerusalem

I'm not surprised that the Church Fathers generally saw the overall context as Messianic. They saw the 70 Weeks period come to an end with the earthly ministry of Christ who was "cut off," but accomplished the 6 things describing his work in vs. 24.

I'm also not surprised that they saw the Covenant aspect of this 70th Week as fulfilled by Christ. What Irenaeus and Hippolytus did, however, was identify the 70th Week with the Antichrist due to all of the negativities indicated by the pronoun "he." This pronoun "he" has a lot of obvious negativities associated with it, which seems to eliminate the possibility it refers to Messiah as the antecedent.

So I find that the Covenant was not the New Covenant of Christ, but indeed the Covenant of Law endorsed by Christ but destined to condemn Israel under that system for their blatant and non-belligerent sins. Nobody could be justified by the Law, as Paul taught. The Covenant brought a curse to all mankind, no matter how much they obeyed it or were blessed by it. Nobody can reach Heaven by the Law! It spoke of the New Covenant in Christ.

And so, the one confirming the Covenant of Law was a negative. He was, in my view, the "Ruler to Come" who would do all of those things to show that the Law falls short of justifying anybody, especially Israel. He came to destroy the city and the sanctuary after he had delegitimized animal sacrifices by backing up the desire of the Jews to have Jesus crucified. He confirmed that the Law was dead!

And that's why Christ was cut off in this 70th Week, and why sacrifices were dispensed with by the cooperation of the Roman governor with Jewish sin against Jesus. It was to confirm what the Law had taught, that nobody will be justified under the system of Law, or the Temple system.

The problem is, the pronoun "he" has to refer to the same person throughout. We just can't say one "he" is Christ who confirms the Covenant and another "he" is the Roman General who leads a Roman Army against Jerusalem! This would be most confusing!

 

[Randy Kluth]

They fail to see that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (destroyed by Titus, an antichrist, an abomination who caused desolation) as a separate time period alluded to, but not part of the 70 weeks already fulfilled by Christ.
"And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
(This is just an allusion to 70 AD, a parenthethical citation not within the 70 weeks timeline)
"The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined."
(Also alluding to the destruction /desolation of Jerusalem).
Daniel 9 was history.
This does not mean that another abomination causing desolation will be evident in the coming Great Tribulation.
This is how Satan works, destroying places of worship, disgraceful acts, murder ...
I've been hearing talk of a new Temple being prepared for twenty years. Pre-Tribbers are stuck on that being an essential element in the scenario. Is it necessary? I don't think so. Christ will build a Millennial Kingdom Temple.

I can easily see this supposed "rebuilding of a modern Jewish temple" as being a distraction. How spiritual can it be, when nothing about it is New Testament? The building of the Tabernacle, and the building of Solomon's Temple were described in ornate detail in the Scriptures. These were glorious events, since they depicted a covenant relationship between God and Israel that would bring national blessings, if followed.

But how is the Jews' task of building a modern temple a glorious thing? It isn't. And the Scriptures don't dwell on that at all. So why should we?

I agree with you that Dan 9 speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But I don't know how you create a double fulfillment for this by claiming both that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and to the Antichrist and a future AoD?

But we are apparently both Postribulational and Premillennial. We agree on that much. To identify the AoD as something happening for a 2nd time with Antichrist, I can't see that. I do understand that many believe in "dual fulfillments" though. I'm happy we have a lot in common. Our disagreements are somewhat peripheral matters.

I might add this, however. I do think the Scriptures use dual comparisons. By that I mean that, for example, Daniel gave not one but two AoDs to show, apparently, the similarities between Antiochus 4 and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (the AoDs in Dan 9 and in Dan 11). Perhaps then the AoD is also meant to be compared with the Antichrist (in Dan 7) who will destroy the Church, God's Temple?

I just don't get into "dual fulfillments" though, because it makes interpreting Scriptures difficult if not impossible. Dual comparisons, however, are fine by me!