26 And after three score 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
determinedshall be
poured upon the
desolate.
I have always thought this verse referred to the anti-Christ when observing how the sentence is constructed. The thought that 9:27 refers to Christ Himself is indeed promoted among some scholars. Here is a comparison between 3 differing persons to whom Dan. 9:27 refers:
WHO IS "HE"?
(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this hemost closely parallels the prince who is to come in the previous passage (
Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (
Da 7:8,
11-
note Da 7:20,
21-
note).
It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "
anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ.
We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see
Da 7:7-
note,
Da 7:19-
note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision...
And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in
Da 7:1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6-
note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (
Re 13:1-
note;
Re 13:2-
note; see also study of
The Beast; and
Beasts, Heads, and Horns)
(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "
future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlastingcovenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “
in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ.
Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing...
Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse.
How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (
Daniel - H A Ironside)
Ray adds...
In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (
Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts.
Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume
Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (
A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)
(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes -
Da 8:9-
note,
Da 8:17-
note,
Da 8:19-
note; see also
Daniel notes and
additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret
Da 9:25,
26as a prophecy of Christ's first coming -
See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see
1Mac 1:11,
12,
13,
14,
15).
(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation.
In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in
Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun Hein
Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character.
Con't.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/index.php/daniel_927
