The Prince to Come

[Randy Kluth]

The "prince to come." I've had a go at trying to interpret the "70 Weeks of Daniel" for about 50 years now. And I've tried to correct my errors with every legitimate argument that has come to challenge my positions. Here is how I see things today, after many views and many corrections.

Probably central to my view are a few major points.
1) The prophecy concerns the coming to fruition of God's Covenant, as it relates to Temple Worship.
2) The Prophecy is a period of 70 Weeks of Years that is completed with a Half Week in which Christ is cut off, leaving Temple offerings delegitimized.
3) The completion of the 70 Weeks is essentially an indictment against Israel, leading to the destruction of the Temple after the completion of the 70 Weeks.
4) The "prince to come" is the generic Roman ruler who determines to do things that from God's point of view confirms His promised covenant with Israel. In other words, this confirmation of God's covenant is not the prince's determined effort, but rather, the indirect effect of what he determines to do.

Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks. Daniel is shown a 70 Weeks of years period of time, encompassing the time from 457 BC to approx. 30 AD. The 70th Week is cut short into a half Week. The focus of this period has to do with the restoration of the Temple worship from the time of King Artaxerxes up until the time the Temple is completely destroyed by the Roman prince. But this 70 Weeks period also is designed to lead up to Messiah, who brings about God's Covenant.

So we are told about an initial 7 Weeks period of time, 49 years, in which the Temple worship is fully restored and Jerusalem built as an independently-run city. Ezra and Nehemiah contributed to this process. Then there is a long expanse of time up until the final Week, the 70th Week, which stops short of a full Week by the death of Messiah. This completes the promised Covenant of God. The old Temple is then destroyed, after Christ, the new Temple, has been established in its place.

We are told that the people of a prince to come will destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This prince, the Roman ruler, indirectly fulfills the New Covenant of Christ by putting him to death. He cuts Christ off after half the 70th Week, indirectly confirming God's Covenant to save Israel despite their waywardness. He signals the termination of Temple offerings by destroying the Messiah himself, for whom these offerings have been given. And he finishes the job by destroying the Temple itself in 70 AD.

The "prince to come," who was the Roman ruler, did not intend to fulfill biblical prophecy, but in effect that is what he did. By having Christ killed at the end of his 3.5 year ministry he in effect "confirmed God's Covenant of atonement with Israel."

He in effect put an end to Israel's offerings to God inasmuch as the God to whom they were offering these things was rejected at the cross. And the Roman ruler merely confirmed this rejection by accommodating their request to have Christ put to death.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.... 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ [That is, the Roman ruler will cause God's Covenant to complete the 70 Weeks.] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. [That is, the Roman ruler will end Israel's Temple offerings by having Christ cut off.] And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it. [That is, the Roman ruler will set up his people as an army to lay siege to Jerusalem, destroying the temple.]

This is just something for you to consider....

 

[Douggg]

The proper interpretation of Daniel 9 and eschatology can be summed up in one sentence and desire, from Revelation 22.

"Even so, come Lord Jesus"

Jesus comes for the rapture/resurrection, for redemption of our bodies, and to escape going through the great tribulation.

Jesus comes to end the great tribulation.

Jesus comes bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to be the Kingdom of God here on earth, to rule over the nations.

Jesus comes to cast the beast-king and false prophet in to the Lake of Fire.

Jesus comes to end Satan's kingdom.

Jesus comes to begin the 1000 year millennium.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The proper interpretation of Daniel 9 and eschatology can be summed up in one sentence and desire, from Revelation 22.

"Even so, come Lord Jesus"

Jesus comes for the rapture/resurrection, for redemption of our bodies, and to escape going through the great tribulation.

Jesus comes to end the great tribulation.

Jesus comes bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to be the Kingdom of God here on earth, to rule over the nations.

Jesus comes to cast the beast-king and false prophet in to the Lake of Fire.

Jesus comes to end Satan's kingdom.

Jesus comes to begin the 1000 year millennium.

I would say "like" because I agree with everything you appear to be saying here. However, you are doing so in the context of Dan 9, which I believe was fulfilled 2000 years ago at the end of Daniel's 70 Weeks. But thanks for your input.

 

[quietthinker]

The "prince to come." I've had a go at trying to interpret the "70 Weeks of Daniel" for about 50 years now. And I've tried to correct my errors with every legitimate argument that has come to challenge my positions. Here is how I see things today, after many views and many corrections.

Probably central to my view are a few major points.
1) The prophecy concerns the coming to fruition of God's Covenant, as it relates to Temple Worship.
2) The Prophecy is a period of 70 Weeks of Years that is completed with a Half Week in which Christ is cut off, leaving Temple offerings delegitimized.
3) The completion of the 70 Weeks is essentially an indictment against Israel, leading to the destruction of the Temple after the completion of the 70 Weeks.
4) The "prince to come" is the generic Roman ruler who determines to do things that from God's point of view confirms His promised covenant with Israel. In other words, this confirmation of God's covenant is not the prince's determined effort, but rather, the indirect effect of what he determines to do.

Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks. Daniel is shown a 70 Weeks of years period of time, encompassing the time from 457 BC to approx. 30 AD. The 70th Week is cut short into a half Week. The focus of this period has to do with the restoration of the Temple worship from the time of King Artaxerxes up until the time the Temple is completely destroyed by the Roman prince. But this 70 Weeks period also is designed to lead up to Messiah, who brings about God's Covenant.

So we are told about an initial 7 Weeks period of time, 49 years, in which the Temple worship is fully restored and Jerusalem built as an independently-run city. Ezra and Nehemiah contributed to this process. Then there is a long expanse of time up until the final Week, the 70th Week, which stops short of a full Week by the death of Messiah. This completes the promised Covenant of God. The old Temple is then destroyed, after Christ, the new Temple, has been established in its place.

We are told that the people of a prince to come will destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This prince, the Roman ruler, indirectly fulfills the New Covenant of Christ by putting him to death. He cuts Christ off after half the 70th Week, indirectly confirming God's Covenant to save Israel despite their waywardness. He signals the termination of Temple offerings by destroying the Messiah himself, for whom these offerings have been given. And he finishes the job by destroying the Temple itself in 70 AD.

The "prince to come," who was the Roman ruler, did not intend to fulfill biblical prophecy, but in effect that is what he did. By having Christ killed at the end of his 3.5 year ministry he in effect "confirmed God's Covenant of atonement with Israel."

He in effect put an end to Israel's offerings to God inasmuch as the God to whom they were offering these things was rejected at the cross. And the Roman ruler merely confirmed this rejection by accommodating their request to have Christ put to death.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.... 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ [That is, the Roman ruler will cause God's Covenant to complete the 70 Weeks.] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. [That is, the Roman ruler will end Israel's Temple offerings by having Christ cut off.] And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it. [That is, the Roman ruler will set up his people as an army to lay siege to Jerusalem, destroying the temple.]

This is just something for you to consider....

The Jewish Temple has of itself no value. Everything about its structure (set up) and practices are symbolic/ metaphor. I am amazed that this simple fact is not recognised.....and because it is not, misinterpretation is spawned and developed.

I would ask, who is it that confirmed the covenant? who is it that was 'cut off'? who is it that is the Fathers 'house' made flesh? These statements should be screaming at all who recognise Jesus as God's purpose.

These texts are a Messianic prophecy with a secondary application as are many prophecies however the primary application is Messianic.

 

[Davidpt]

The 70th Week is cut short into a half Week.

For one thing you end up with bizarre math that way that no mathematician would find acceptable.

70 x 7 = 490. 69.5 x 7 does not equal 490, it equals 487.5. Which then does not equal this---70 weeks are determined.

Only 490 = 70 weeks. 487.5 certainly doesn't = 70 weeks.

 

[Randy Kluth]

For one thing you end up with bizarre math that way that no mathematician would find acceptable.

70 x 7 = 490. 69.5 x 7 does not equal 490, it equals 487.5. Which then does not equal this---70 weeks are determined.

Only 490 = 70 weeks. 487.5 certainly doesn't = 70 weeks.

If that was my math it would be bad math indeed. Fortunately, it is *not* my math!
If the prophecy said there must be 70 *complete* Weeks, then I might agree with you. However, it said there would only be 70 Weeks, and even with a half Week at the end it can still be called the "70th Week."

It's like when Jesus rose on the 3rd Day. Nobody would dispute that he rose on the 3rd day just because the 3rd day wasn't an entire Day. Any part of a day on the 3rd day is still the 3rd day.

Same with the 70th Week. Any part of the 70th Week is still the "70th Week."

I wasn't the one to call the 70th Week a Half Week. It was Scriptures that said Temple offerings are terminated in the "midst of the Week." That may be a reference to the effect of Christ being cut off...

Dan 9.the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will...confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

So the 70 Weeks appear to be designed to be fulfilled with the 70th Week being only a Half Week because that is how the 70th Week is characterized here. I didn't make this up--this is what the Scriptures are saying.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Jewish Temple has of itself no value. Everything about its structure (set up) and practices are symbolic/ metaphor. I am amazed that this simple fact is not recognised.....and because it is not, misinterpretation is spawned and developed.

I would ask, who is it that confirmed the covenant? who is it that was 'cut off'? who is it that is the Fathers 'house' made flesh? These statements should be screaming at all who recognise Jesus as God's purpose.

These texts are a Messianic prophecy with a secondary application as are many prophecies however the primary application is Messianic.

Tell that to High Priest Aaron's two sons who offered "strange fire!" The Temple worship may well have been symbolic, but its worship was very real and very much required in the time of the Law.

When I speak about the "Covenant" in Dan 9, I'm referring to a transition from Symbolic Temple to Eternal Temple. As I said, the Symbolic Temple of Moses and Solomon were valid and required in their time. Today Christ is the Eternal Temple, making the old Temple Worship redundant, unnecessary, and in fact wrong.

That worship was a temporary exercise to obtain temporary standing with God until a final resolution to the problem of Sin and Death could be found. Now that Christ has obtained for us resurrection from the dead and eternal righteousness, we no longer need a temporary fix.

So the Covenant that fulfilled prophecy in Dan 9 is the Eternal Covenant, or the Eternal Temple of Christ himself. He replaced the old Temple in a time when Israel showed herself utterly unworthy as a nation--a time when her sins came to full magnification. That's why the old Temple of Herod was destroyed.

But Christ brought redemption through the sufferings of his own body, forgiving those who sinned against God. He is our atonement when we embrace him as our Lord and Savior. He is the final and eternal Temple of God, through whom we participate and become part of.

I'm hoping we agree on these things??

 

[quietthinker]

Tell that to High Priest Aaron's two sons who offered "strange fire!" The Temple worship may well have been symbolic, but its worship was very real and very much required in the time of the Law.

When I speak about the "Covenant" in Dan 9, I'm referring to a transition from Symbolic Temple to Eternal Temple. As I said, the Symbolic Temple of Moses and Solomon were valid and required in their time. Today Christ is the Eternal Temple, making the old Temple Worship redundant, unnecessary, and in fact wrong.

That worship was a temporary exercise to obtain temporary standing with God until a final resolution to the problem of Sin and Death could be found. Now that Christ has obtained for us resurrection from the dead and eternal righteousness, we no longer need a temporary fix.

So the Covenant that fulfilled prophecy in Dan 9 is the Eternal Covenant, or the Eternal Temple of Christ himself. He replaced the old Temple in a time when Israel showed herself utterly unworthy as a nation--a time when her sins came to full magnification. That's why the old Temple of Herod was destroyed.

But Christ brought redemption through the sufferings of his own body, forgiving those who sinned against God. He is our atonement when we embrace him as our Lord and Savior. He is the final and eternal Temple of God, through whom we participate and become part of.

I'm hoping we agree on these things??

The Hebrews had never it seems understood the intrinsic meaning of the Sanctuary. They settled for a similar understanding of their practices as did the nations around them of their temples and rituals...... as do many 'christians' of their practices ie, something that God (s) wants and requires done to gain his favour. As the scripture says, they are stiffnecked with sinews of iron.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Hebrews had never it seems understood the intrinsic meaning of the Sanctuary. They settled for a similar understanding of their practices as did the nations around them of their temples and rituals...... as do many 'christians' of their practices ie, something that God (s) wants and requires done to gain his favour. As the scripture says, they are stiffnecked with sinews of iron.

You aren't being very clear to me--are you saying that the Hebrews, in their practice of Law, were actually disobeying God? Are you saying that Christians, in their worship of God through Water Baptism and Communion, are doing so out of disobedience to God? What exactly are you trying to say?

It quite frankly sounds like you're judging the motives of people as if they are only worshiping God externally, treating the rituals as if they are purely perfunctory practices, and not spiritual? In the case I'd have to ask why you think this is generally true of all ancient Hebrews and generally true of all Christians today?

 

[quietthinker]

You aren't being very clear to me--are you saying that the Hebrews, in their practice of Law, were actually disobeying God? Are you saying that Christians, in their worship of God through Water Baptism and Communion, are doing so out of disobedience to God? What exactly are you trying to say?

It quite frankly sounds like you're judging the motives of people as if they are only worshiping God externally, treating the rituals as if they are purely perfunctory practices, and not spiritual? In the case I'd have to ask why you think this is generally true of all ancient Hebrews and generally true of all Christians today?

I'm saying Randy, that the practices of the Hebrews were by and large just a round of rituals as they are to many who call themselves Christians. They debate correctness or incorrectness of their or others views add nauseam.

Re the Hebrews, their slide into idolatry, even that of human sacrifice, again and again is indicative of this. If the Jews had joined the dots, they would have recognised the murder of Jesus as being pertinent.....even or at least post the Crucifixion. Some of their Prophets railed against their 'stiff-neckedness'

Re Christianity....a similar 'fogging' of the understanding has happened where minors are majored on and majors are eclipsed by an ongoing skewed emphasis where a parallel stiff-neckedness is prevalent.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm saying Randy, that the practices of the Hebrews were by and large just a round of rituals as they are to many who call themselves Christians. They debate correctness or incorrectness of their or others views add nauseam.

Re the Hebrews, their slide into idolatry, even that of human sacrifice, again and again is indicative of this. If the Jews had joined the dots, they would have recognised the murder of Jesus as being pertinent.....even or at least post the Crucifixion. Some of their Prophets railed against their 'stiff-neckedness'

Re Christianity....a similar 'fogging' of the understanding has happened where minors are majored on and majors are eclipsed by an ongoing skewed emphasis where a parallel stiff-neckedness is prevalent.

Yes, I would agree if your statements weren't so all-encompassing. There are always fake Christians and fake Jews. And some simply haven't come to know the Lord yet.

Beyond this, I also believe nations go through cycles. Whereas they may be utterly bankrupt today, yesterday they may have been a thriving community of believers.

So yes, I get your point. I just want to stay on this side of extreme judgmentalism.

Matt 7.13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."