What Is the Truth About "the Prince"
in the 70 Weeks of Daniel?
By Michael F. Blume
August 2001
I recently read an article in the Summer 2001 edition of CONNECT magazine
written by an Apostolic who proposed that our view of prophecy
incorrectly teaches that there was only one prince mentioned in Daniel
9:24-27, regarding the 70 weeks of Daniel. The argument was based upon
an attempt to prove there must be a gap between the 69th and the 70th
weeks of Daniel’s 70 weeks noted in Daniel 9:24. However, the
information said to be promoted by us in this article was absolutely
incorrect. Let me try to set the record straight regarding what we
actually believe regarding the issue of the "prince" in Daniel 9, and
also address some other concerns raised by the particular author who
misrepresented our teaching.
Here is the scripture in question:
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks
are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the
transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation
for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up
the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and
understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and
to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven
weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again,
and the wall, even in troublous times.
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.
Daniel 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.
THE REAL QUESTION CONCERNS THE IDENTITY OF "HE" IN VERSE 27
The entire issue circles around the identity of the "he" in verse 27.
Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: …
Who is the "he" who confirms a
covenant with many for one week? Futurists, who believe that the entire
70 weeks is not yet fulfilled, contend that the "he" is the antichrist.
we contend that the "he" is not the antichrist but is the Messiah the
Prince, Jesus Christ. Let us prove that the "he" most certainly is
Jesus Christ.
It has been argued by some
Futurists that we teach the prince in verse 26 is Jesus, and that we
therefore teach that Jesus destroyed the temple accord to the
statement, "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the
city and the sanctuary." This is simply a straw man argument (an
argument that attacks a belief supposedly held by another group while
in reality the other group holds no such belief at all!).
Jesus is certainly the Messiah
the Prince of verse 25. Nobody in Christianity argues that. The second
prince noted in verse 26, "the prince that shall come," is not Jesus
Christ. That is not the problem between Futurists and ourselves. The
real issue is the identity of the "he" noted in the first phrase of
verse 27.
THERE ARE TWO PRINCES MENTIONED IN THE DISCOURSE
In the straw man argument
proposed by some futurists, the aspect of the lower case letter "p" in
the word "prince" from the phrase, "prince that shall come," is a
matter of supposed proof that we are incorrect. Once again, we do not
believe the prince in verse 26 is Jesus. So the argument about who this
prince is, is not an issue anyway! But simply for the sake of noting
proper study manners, I do wish to point out that it is unwise to prove
a doctrine based upon the translators’ preference of
capitalization in a word! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,
every word was comprised of capital letters! This shows some very weak
study manners used by those Futurists who argue their point using such
methods as pointing to what words are capitalized or not..
The prince in verse 25 is Jesus and the prince in 26 is not Jesus.
That is a fact.
That is not the question, though. The question is the identity of the "he" in verse 27.
So it is not a question of
whether Jesus destroyed the temple and the city according to verse 26.
The prince in verse 26, who was responsible for the temple and city
destruction of 70 AD, was not Jesus! It was the Roman "prince". The
Roman people came and destroyed the temple and City by 70 AD. Jesus and
His people did not destroy the temple.
GRAMMAR PROVES CHRIST IS THE "HE"
Analyzing the grammar of verses
25 through 27 shows us that the "he" who confirms a covenant for seven
years is Jesus Christ. The subject of the discussion is found in verse
25, and is the Messiah the Prince. Verse 25 mentions a span of time of
"seven weeks" and "threescore and two weeks." Seven plus sixty-two is
sixty-nine. The Messiah the Prince is on the scene after the first 69
weeks. And we read that after the "threescore and two weeks", Messiah
shall be cut off. What is "after" the threescore and two weeks? It is
the 70th WEEK! During the time after the 69th week, which is during the 70 th
week, Messiah is cut off. And this fits perfectly with the sequence of
events that occurred in the Biblical texts of the New Testament. Jesus
came, and 3.5 years later was crucified, or cut off. The "week" is a
week of seven years. All agree with that. And in the midst of the
"week", the sacrifice and oblation ceased. God would never again accept
sacrifice of blood, since Christ was the final sacrifice God would ever
recognize. This refers to the crucifixion where Christ was "cut off"
due to an untimely death, as opposed to death by natural old age. He
was "cut off" since He was killed. And he was not cut off for Himself!
He died for the salvation of humanity! Praise God!
Not only would Christ be cut off
after the 69 weeks, but the people of the prince that shall come would
destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple). This was fulfilled by the
year 70 AD. Desolations were "determined." Jesus Christ referred to the
destruction of the Temple, Himself, in Matthew 23.
Matthew 23:37-38 O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them
which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye
would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
"Your house is left unto you desolate."
And then we come to the verse in
question. After all this information is provided, we suddenly read of
"he" who confirms the covenant with many for one week. Grammar demands
this "he" simply cannot be the "prince that shall come" in verse 26.
The subject in question is the Messiah the Prince of verse 25.
Get the sequence of events.
The Messiah comes and is cut off.
Then a certain people destroy the city and sanctuary.
And "he" confirms the covenant
with many for one week. Who? "He." This "he" must be the Messiah of
verse 25! It cannot be the "prince that shall come" because this
reference to the "prince that shall come" is not the subject in any
point of the entire writing! After noting the cutting off of the
messiah, we read that a certain people come and destroy the city and
temple. And a side note to this temple destruction is that this
particular people belong to a "prince that shall come". The point that
is stressed, though, is not this "prince that shall come". Reference to
this second prince serves only as a side note, telling us who this
"people" belong to and what nation they are from.
Saying that the "he" in verse 27
is some antichrist, is similar to misinterpreting the following
sentence, "Steven went to the store beside the house owned by Mr.
Brown, and he purchased a loaf of bread." To say that the "he" at the
end of the phrase is Mr. Brown is to make the same error as do the
Futurists when they say that the "he" in verse 27 is antichrist. The
‘"he" in my example of Steven going to the store is of course
referring to Steven. It is not Mr. Brown. It cannot be due to the
grammar I used. "Steven" is the subject. Mr. Brown is only a side note!
And that is exactly the manner in which the prince that shall come is
involved in the discussion. He is a side note, and only a clarifier as
to the identity of the people who will destroy the city and temple. He
is not the subject in any sense of the word. And to make him the
grammatical "subject" of Verse 27 is to simply destroy all methods of
proper grammar and the association of sentences and their grammatical
"subjects" with one another in the context of the particular discussion.
The Bible says nothing about a "prince" other than Jesus who confirms a covenant with anybody for seven years.
TO "MAKE" OR "CONFIRM" A COVENANT FOR 7 YEARS
Those who argue this reasoning
state that Jesus did not make a covenant with anybody for a seven year
period. The text reads that he would confirm a covenant with many for
seven years. To confirm a covenant is to refer to an already existent
covenant! It is to support a covenant and make it sure. And Jesus most certainly did make a covenant sure! He "confirmed" the covenant.
Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when
he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me
In other words, God never did
ultimately desire animal sacrifice. Jesus Christ fulfilled the perfect
will of God by coming as the sacrifice ultimately planned before the
foundation of the world. He confirmed this covenant of God in the statement noted in Hebrews 10:5.
Jeremiah noted the covenant as follows:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold,
the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they
brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After
those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be
my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and
every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know
me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no
more.
And Hebrews speaks of this covenant that Jesus made sure through His death.
Hebrews 8:6-13 But now hath
he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better
promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no
place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he
saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not,
saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws
into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them
a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every
man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be
merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities
will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made
the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to
vanish away.
His death confirmed it by His blood.
Hebrews 9:14-20 How much
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to
serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new
testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are
called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a
testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the
testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither
the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had
spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took
the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This
is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Jesus also said His blood confirmed the covenant.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Above we read of Christ, the
one to confirm the covenant. And we also read of the covenant itself.
And the blood is said to be the element that would confirm that
covenant. Jesus even said that his blood would be shed "for many"
for the remission of sins. Daniel 9:27 said the covenant was confirmed
"with many." What perfect fulfillment of the words of Daniel 9:27!
The great covenant prophesied to come in Jeremiah stressed the forgiveness of sins.
Jeremiah 31:34 And they
shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Jesus noted that as the stress of the covenant confirmed by His blood in saying, "which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Remission of sins is the same language in Greek as saying "forgiveness of sins."
STRONG’S GREEK LEXICON
aphesis {af'-es-is}
AV – translated as
"remission" 9 times, as "forgiveness" 6 times, as "deliverance" 1 time,
as "liberty" 1 time -- used 17 times in the New Testament.
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty
Isaiah used the term "many" in reference to who would be saved by the great covenant.
Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Jesus also made a covenant. When Jesus Christ read from the scroll of Isaiah after His baptism, He quoted these words:
Luke 4:18-19 The Spirit of
the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel
to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to
set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of
the Lord.
He then said it was fulfilled that day.
Luke 4:20-21 And he closed
the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the
eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And
he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your
ears.
Let us turn to the reference Jesus took from Isaiah.
Isaiah 61:1-3 The Spirit of
the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach
good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the
brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of
the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of
the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that
mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them
beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise
for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of
righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
As we go through this chapter we eventually come to these words:
Isaiah 61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them .
All of this is in the
contextual frame of time of verses 1-3. And Jesus said that was
fulfilled in the day He read the text in the synagogue. So we find that
Jesus did indeed fulfill the scripture in making a covenant, and also
confirming it. He confirmed the covenant that was foretold to come by
the Old Testament prophets. And He also made it. It did not say that He
"made" it for seven years, though. He "confirmed" it for seven years.
That does not mean the covenant would only work for a seven-year
duration. It was confirmed to the Israelites. 70 Weeks were determined
strictly for natural Israel alone, and as prophecy was fulfilled, the
Gospel was finally experienced by the Gentiles. And 3.5 years after the
cross, the restriction to natural Israel was completed.
WHAT ABOUT FURTHER SACRIFICES AFTER CHRIST’S DEATH?
It has been contended that
sacrifices continued past Christ’s sacrifice, supposedly proving
that Christ’s sacrifice did not indeed cause the sacrifice and
oblation to cease as verse 27 states. However, we are seeing these
things from the eyes and perspective of God. God deemed all sacrifices
and oblations to have ceased when Christ died.
There would be a ceasing of
sacrifice should a sacrifice finally occur that would make the comers
thereunto perfect and complete. Once the worshippers were purged by a
sacrifice, and had no more conscience of sins, no further sacrifices
would be required. This very issue is dealt with in the New Testament
book of Hebrews, and the Futurists are missing all of this. Could it be
that Hebrews went into such detail as to what would cause sacrifices to
"cease" to partly prove that Christ did indeed fulfill Daniel’s
prophecy amongst others?
Hebrews 10:1-2 For the law
having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the
things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year
continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not
have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Here, the Bible says that a
perfect sacrifice would cause the further sacrifices to have "ceased to
be offered." It is beyond doubt that Jesus Christ was that perfect
sacrifice. Therefore, it only stands to reason that His sacrifice ended
all sacrifices that would even be recognized as "sacrifices" by God. To
say that Christ’s sacrifice did not fulfill Hebrews 10:1-2 in
standing as a perfect sacrifice is to deny the entire Gospel of Jesus
Christ. The entire point of Hebrews 10 is that Christ’s offering
was a perfect sacrifice that purges the very consciences of believers.
And in the same context, we read that sacrifices cease to be offered
when one is offered that makes the comers thereunto perfect. Did not
Christ stand as the perfect sacrifice making the comers thereunto
perfect? If so, then verse 2 must stand, also! Sacrifices ceased to be
offered.
The Jews may have continued to
offer what they called "sacrifices" to God after Christ died, but in
God’s eyes they were not even sacrifices at all, but acts of
unbelief and rejection of the Messiah! And in His eyes, and all the
eyes of the believers who knew Christ, sacrifices ceased to be offered.
From whose perspective should we look at things anyway? God wrote the
book! Let’s see it from His perspective in light of His word in
Hebrews 10.
Because the sacrifices of the Old Testament never perfected the worshippers, we read;
Hebrews 10:5-12 Wherefore
when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and
sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come
(in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and
offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein;
which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will,
O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By
the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering
and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Hebrews teaches in explicit detail the very truth of Daniel 9:27, using Daniel’s very words!
Daniel 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.
HAPHAZARD MINGLING OF DIFFERENT ISSUES
Futurists claim that the
antichrist makes a covenant with the Jews to offer sacrifices once
again after almost 2,000 years of having offered no blood, by giving
them a temple in which to worship God. This idea is the result of
haphazard mingling of scriptures with no explicit statement saying
anything to the effect of such an idea. Nowhere does the Bible state
that an antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews to sacrifice
animals once again in a rebuilt temple. All that we are given by
Futurists is the following scriptures:
Daniel 8:9-14 And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and
toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of
heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the
ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the
prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of
transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it
practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another
saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the
vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of
desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under
foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days;
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no
man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there
come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God
Daniel 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.
Notice that Daniel 8 says nothing
about the little horn, supposed to be the coming antichrist, making a
covenant with the Jews to offer sacrifices after having not been able
to do so due to not having a temple for almost 2,000 years. And Daniel
8:9-14 is alleged to be linked to the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
where a "son of perdition" is said to stand in the temple of God and
show himself that he is God. But nothing is said anywhere in any
of these references of an antichrist making a covenant with Jews to
sacrifice to God in the temple!
Futurists have shown a very weak manner of study methods by taking the story of the little horn, who would take away a daily sacrifice, and blending it with Paul’s prophecy of a son of perdition exalting himself as God in the temple. Then they tried to force Daniel 9:27 into it all. Yes there is similarity
between Daniel 9:27’s reference to the causing of the sacrifice
to cease with the note in Daniel 8 that says the little horn takes away
the daily sacrifice. But Daniel 9:27 does not say that the cessation of
the sacrifices and oblations had anything to do with breaking the
covenant that was confirmed. It simply says a covenant was "confirmed,"
not "made," and sacrifices ceased 3.5 years later.
How Futurists arrive at a
conclusion of saying the covenant is the commencement of sacrifices by
the Jews in a temple is through assumption that the little horn’s removal of sacrifices, and the son of perdition’s exaltation of himself in the temple are one and the same event. They assume that the son of perdition’s self-exaltation in God’s temple is how the little horn of Daniel 8 takes away sacrifices.
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES
However, we are told in Daniel who the little horn actually is, and this destroys the futurists’ entire concept.
Daniel 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great , toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
Daniel 8:21-22 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
This little horn who waxed
great is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The prophecy was fulfilled over two
thousand years ago! This empire existed before Rome ever conquered
Palestine and ruled it during Christ’s day! And it is commonly
interpreted that the four kingdoms rising from this nation were the
four generals who divided the empire amongst themselves after Alexander
the Great’s death.
Antiochus IV (Antiochus
Epiphanes) Pronounced As: antiks pifnz, d. 163 B.C., king of Syria (175
B.C.-163 B.C.), son of Antiochus III and successor of his brother
Seleucus IV. Antiochus is best known for his attempt to Hellenize
Judaea and extirpate Judaism-a policy that instigated the rebellion of
the Maccabees. Antiochus invaded Egypt, which was torn by strife
between Ptolemy VI and his brother (later Ptolemy VII), and would
probably have conquered that region if the Romans had not intervened in
his siege of Alexandria (168). (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2000, Columbia University Press).
Antiochus Epiphanes was
foretold to take away the daily sacrifice. This daily sacrifice was the
sacrifice of the lamb in the morning, and in the evening, which the
priests were hindered from offering, by the crowds of Heathens in the
temple; or prohibited by the order of Antiochus; for he forbad burnt
offerings, sacrifice, and libation, to be made in the temple.
Josephus wrote:
"2. Now Antiochus was not
satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its
pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being
overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had
suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws
of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to
sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed
themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death.
Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these
wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all
sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the
inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open
destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the
extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves." (The Wars Of The
Jews, Or, The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem, Book I).
The books of I and II Maccabees
are not considered inspired of God but are certainly trustworthy
resources for historical references. This following statement was made
concerning the abominations that Antiochus set up.
"Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts:" (1 Maccabees 1:47)
"and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate; " Daniel 11:31
A garrison of Heathen soldiers in
the temple drove the priests and people from it, and made it desolate,
and also an idol was placed in the temple. Idols in Scripture were
called abominations. The image of Jupiter Olympius was placed upon the
altar of God by Antiochus, on the fifteenth day of the month Cisieu, in
the hundred and forty fifth year of the Seleucidae, and is called the
abomination of desolations.
1 Maccabees 1:20 And after that Antiochus
had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third
year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude,
1:21 And entered proudly
into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick
of light, and all the vessels thereof,
1:22 And the table of
the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials. and the censers
of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that
were before the temple, all which he pulled off.
1:23 He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found.
1:24 And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly.
1:25 Therefore there was a great mourning in Israel, in every place where they were;
1:26 So that the princes and
elders mourned, the virgins and young men were made feeble, and the
beauty of women was changed.
1:27 Every bridegroom took up lamentation, and she that sat in the marriage chamber was in heaviness,
1:28 The land also was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion.
1:29 And after two years fully
expired the king sent his chief collector of tribute unto the cities of
Juda, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude,
1:30 And spake peaceable
words unto them, but all was deceit: for when they had given him
credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and
destroyed much people of Israel. (See Daniel 8:25).
1:31 And when he had taken the
spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and
walls thereof on every side.
1:32 But the women and children took they captive, and possessed the cattle.
1:33 Then builded they the
city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and
made it a strong hold for them.
1:34 And they put therein a sinful nation, wicked men, and fortified themselves therein.
1:35 They stored it also with
armour and victuals, and when they had gathered together the spoils of
Jerusalem, they laid them up there, and so they became a sore snare:
1:36 For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel.
1:37 Thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary, and defiled it:
1:38 Insomuch that the
inhabitants of Jerusalem fled because of them: whereupon the city was
made an habitation of strangers, and became strange to those that were
born in her; and her own children left her.
1:39 Her sanctuary was laid
waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her
Sabbath's into reproach her honour into contempt.
1:40 As had been her glory, so was her dishonour increased, and her excellency was turned into mourning.
1:41 Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people,
1:42 And every one should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king.
1:43 Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath .
1:44 For the king had sent
letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Juda that they
should follow the strange laws of the land,
1:45 And forbid burnt
offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple; and that
they should profane the Sabbath's and festival days:
1:46 And pollute the sanctuary and holy people:
1:47 Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts:
1:48 That they should also
leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable
with all manner of uncleaness and profanation:
1:49 To the end they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances.
1:50 And whosoever would not do according to the commandment of the king, he said, he should die.
1:51 In the selfsame manner
wrote he to his whole kingdom, and appointed overseers over all the
people, commanding the cities of Juda to sacrifice, city by city.
1:52 Then many of the people
were gathered unto them, to wit every one that forsook the law; and so
they committed evils in the land;
1:53 And drove the Israelites into secret places, even wheresoever they could flee for succour.
1:54 Now the fifteenth day of
the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the
abomination of desolation upon thealtar, and builded idol altars
throughout the cities of Juda on every side;
1:55 And burnt incense at the doors of their houses, and in the streets.
1:56 And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, they burnt them with fire.
1:57 And whosoever was
found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the
law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death.
1:58 Thus did they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities.
1:59 Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God.
1:60 At which time
according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had
caused their children to be circumcised.
1:61 And they hanged the infants about their necks, and rifled their houses, and slew them that had circumcised them.
1:62 Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing.
1:63 Wherefore the rather to
die, that they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might not
profane the holy covenant: so then they died.
1:64 And there was very great wrath upon Israel.
2:1 In those days arose
Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of
Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin.
2:2 And he had five sons, Joannan, called Caddis:
2:3 Simon; called Thassi:
2:4 Judas, who was called Maccabeus:
2:5 Eleazar, called Avaran: and Jonathan, whose surname was Apphus.
2:6 And when he saw the blasphemies that were committed in Juda and Jerusalem,
2:7 He said, Woe is me!
wherefore was I born to see this misery of my people, and of the holy
city, and to dwell there, when it was delivered into the hand of the
enemy, and the sanctuary into the hand of strangers?
2:8 Her temple is become as a man without glory.
2:9 Her glorious vessels are
carried away into captivity, her infants are slain in the streets, her
young men with the sword of the enemy.
2:10 What nation hath not had a part in her kingdom and gotten of her spoils?
2:11 All her ornaments are taken away; of a free woman she is become a bondslave.
2:12 And, behold, our sanctuary, even our beauty and our glory, is laid waste, and the Gentiles have profaned it.
2:13 To what end therefore shall we live any longer?
2:14 Then Mattathias and his sons rent their clothes, and put on sackcloth, and mourned very sore.
The temple itself was ordered to be called the temple of Jupiter Olympius.
"And to pollute also the
temple in Jerusalem, and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and
that in Garizim, of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did
desire that dwelt in the place." (2 Maccabees 6:2)
Then Daniel continues to write:
Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
Daniel 8:24 And his power
shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy
wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
Daniel 8:25 And through his
policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall
magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall
also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken
without hand.
The "king of fierce countenance" has been purported to be antichrist as well. The little horn
is also the king of fierce countenance, Antiochus Epiphanes. The simple
reference to the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation in Daniel
9:27, without any support of whether that is caused by an evil one, is
thrown into the picture of the little horn and the son of perdition.
The truth is that the "he" in Daniel 9:27, and the little horn and the
son of perdition are three entirely different people! What proves they
are one and the same? Assumption?
On the other hand, to say that
the "he" in Daniel 9:27 is Christ is supported by the thought of the
Lord’s own words concerning the confirmation of a covenant,
likewise supported by Hebrews 10’s reference to Christ’s
sacrifice ending acceptable sacrifices in God’s eyes. And
furthermore, Christ distinctly ministered 3.5 years before He was cut
off in crucifixion, just as Daniel 9:25-27 shows that Christ would come
at the 69th week and be cut off mid-way through that week.
The New Testament itself gives a parable that confirms Christ
ministered for over three years.
Luke 13:6-9 He spake also
this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and
he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the
dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I
come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why
cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also , till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
Christ is the dresser who
ministered to Israel without converting the nation, and given another
year to continue. And partway through that last year, He was crucified.
And the fig tree was cut down.
There is far more evidence in the
Bible, aside from the assumption of the Futurist position, showing the
"he" in verse 27 to be Jesus Christ.
IS THE LAST WEEK NOT A LITERAL PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS?
The 70th week of
Daniel is not a spiritualized week of untold number of actual days. It
is a seven-year period. In the midst of the period, Christ was
crucified, and 3.5 years elapsed after that to fulfill the time for
Israel alone being privy to God’s workings. Note that the
gentiles did not come into the picture of experiencing salvation until
after 3.5 years. Only Jews were filled with the Spirit in Acts 2:4.
People have estimated that Stephen’s death, when Saul of Tarsus
first began to be pricked in his heart concerning the Christians whom
he persecuted, who later preached and turned to the Gentiles alone in
ministry, occurred 3.5 years after Jesus died and rose again. However,
the precise dating of when the final 3.5 years were fulfilled is not
necessary. The whole point of Daniel was "after" the 69th week, Christ would be cut off and make an end of sacrifices.
If we were to be speaking about
units of days "days," instead of units of "weeks," saying that some
time in the last "day" there would be the cutting off of Messiah, we
would not be concerned if it was in the midst of the day Christ was
crucified or the latter end of the day. The point would be that He
fulfilled the work on that "day." The entire "day", itself, is what
would be the issue. So it is with the "weeks." Daniel was told of
events to occur in the units of "weeks." And after the 69th "week" Messiah would be cut off. And we find in verse 27 it was precisely in the middle of the 70th
week when Christ ended sacrifices. It really doesn’t matter what
occurred during the last half of the last "week", any more than it
would matter what occurred in the period of the daytime left after
Christ died on the cross. The point is, "in the midst of the week" the
Messiah ended sacrifice.
WHO IS THE DESOLATOR OF VERSE 27?
What about the phrase: "and for
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until
the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the
desolate." Some propose that saying Christ is the "he" in verse 27
demands we promote blasphemy! They claim that the aforementioned phrase
can be rewritten to say, "and as upon a wing abominations, a desolator
until the end," and that Christ can never be imagined to be called a
"desolator until the end." However, a good marginal Bible shows the
phrase, "…and for the overspreading of abominations he shall
make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined
shall be poured upon the desolate," can be read as, "…with the
abominable armies he shall make it desolate, and that determined shall
be poured upon the desolator." It is not saying that Christ is an
abominable desolator.
Daniel 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.
Another manner of saying the
last phrase of verse 27 is, "on the wing of detestable things, or
abominations, comes one who makes desolate, even until a complete
destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes
desolate." This means the one who makes desolate is a different
personage than the "he" who confirms a covenant.
Here is the ASV rendering:
ASV Daniel 9:27 And he shall
make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the
week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and
upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and
even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out
upon the desolate.
You can see a separation of the one who confirms the covenant with another one coming who makes desolate.
DARBY TRANSLATION: Daniel
9:27 And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; and in
the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to
cease, and because of the protection of abominations there shall be
a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined
shall be poured out upon the desolate.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLINDNESS IN PART THAT HAPPENED WITH THE JEWS?
Romans 11 speaks of two points
regarding the "times of the gentiles" and the remnant of Israel being
saved. However, these two points occur in the church age alone, and not
the church age plus a period after the church age. Paul said
nothing about any of this occurring outside the work of the church.
I propose that the entire issue
of Christ turning to Israel after the rapture of the church is based
upon an interpretation of Romans 11, which interpretation is in error.
Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
This sets the scene for the
chapter and its issues. Paul is speaking about natural Israel, and
himself being a natural Jew. God had not cast away natural Israel in
Paul's day. This is the all-important point we require in order to
follow the rest of the chapter's context. God had not cut Israel off to
never allow another Jew into the Kingdom. God always had a remnant of
natural Israelites as His people.
In fact, we can jump ahead in the same chapter and read a similar statement with a similar hypothetical question.
Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid…
God no more casts away His
people than he caused them to stumble to never be able to stand again.
But His people can cast Him away, which is what the Jews did when they
rejected Christ.
Both verses 1 and 11 are connected. Paul is getting to the same point
in both verses. He spoke of his present day in both cases and told us
that God did not cast away His people nor did He cause them to stumble
to never see them rise again.
More about this later.
Paul continued…
Romans 11:2 God hath not
cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture
saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel,
saying,
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Romans 11:4 But what saith the
answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
This "remnant" always represented
"all of Israel" when all Israel was not serving Him. That was
their purpose. Though all Israel seemed to have chased after false
gods, the Lord told Elijah that all Israel had indeed not followed
other gods. A remnant remained faithful, and that meant that God could
still say that Israel was His people. The remnant preserves the
bloodline of Israelites who were faithful. The remnant thereby stands
for the entire, and does not allow for the nation to disappear entirely.
Paul said that in his present time there was a remnant, and God would use that remnant to recover His work.
Romans 11:7 What then?
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election
hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Paul asks a hypothetical
question that some might ask upon hearing that the greater part of
Israel had fallen away. The question is actually, "What is the true
picture of the situation now that the greater part of Israel has fallen
away?" Paul's answer is that the entire population of Israel missed the
very thing they were seeking, and the remnant, or election of NATURAL
JEWS, were saved. Once again, this is speaking about Paul's day. The
rest of the population of Israel remained blinded. Only a fraction of
the population of Israel obtained what all of them were seeking.
Romans 11:8 (According as it
is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they
should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Romans 11:9 And David saith,
Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and
a recompence unto them:
Romans 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
God's judgment came on them due
to their provocation in rejecting Christ. But this stumbling did
not occur to the point that no Israelites would ever be able to be
saved in the future, as is explained next.
Romans 11:11 I say then,
Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather
through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke
them to jealousy.
The Gentiles have come in through their fall. So God wisely caused a blindness to occur.
Romans 11:12 Now if the fall
of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the
riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
The diminishing of the Jews is
seen in their blindness. Israel was blinded. But it was not
because God cast them away. A remnant would be brought in to
fulfill God's standard of always having an election stand for His
people. All the Jews were said to be responsible for having crucified
the Lord (Acts 2:23). All Israel was therefore blinded. And
God said He would later bring all Israel to salvation.
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Paul said that in his present day
he preached the gospel to gentiles in order to provoke the Israelites
to jealousy and cause them to also believe in Christ. In other words,
Paul hoped to win some Israelites in his day, who were yet blinded. He
did not throw the hopes of their salvation ahead into the future beyond
our day into the 21 st century! We know that since
Ezekiel 18 stated that God would never again allow it to be said in
Israel that the sins of the fathers were meted out upon their children.
The sin of rejecting Christ did not cause God to blind Israel for
more than one generation. If Israel is blinded today due to that
rejection, then God broke his own promise in Ezekiel 18.
Paul understood that in his own day that there would come a time
God would save all Israel, along with the remnant who were already
saved. Then Paul continues the thought of verse 14 as follows.
Romans 11:15 For if the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the
receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
He explained that the receiving
of these Jews, being life from the dead, is what describes the
remainder of Israel being saved. And they would be saved through
the preaching of the church message, and not anything else. In
other words, after speaking of his then-present efforts to provoke
Israel to jealousy and win some more of the elected remnant, he used
the words that Futurists have thrown out into the future! He did not
regard verse 15 as occurring at the end of the gentile age at all! He
referred to his present day in which he preached to gentiles to provoke
Israel to jealousy in hopes of winning some more of the elect remnant.
Romans 11:23 And they also,
if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is
able to graff them in again.
He stated that in his time,
during the days of the early church, if the Jews believed due to having
been provoked to jealousy by Paul's preaching, then they shall be graft
in again. He did not say that God shall graft in the Jews after the
gentiles receive no more preaching, or after the church age as though
only gentiles are saved in the church age.
How would they believe? They
would believe through the successful attempts by Paul’s ministry
to provoke them to jealousy. Paul already stated in Romans 10
that they must believe the word of faith that Paul preached, which was
the word prophesied in Deuteronomy 30 that would gather them to God
again after having been dispersed.
Romans 11:24 For if thou
wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert
graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall
these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive
tree?
This verse also refers to the
Jews coming in through being provoked by Paul's preaching which He
accomplished during the church age while preaching to gentiles in the
first century. He did not put this event off into the future. Futurists
have put this ahead in to the future, not the Bible.
WHO IS "ALL ISRAEL"?
Romans 11:25 For I would
not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye
should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened
to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel
shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the
Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Above we read the very
controversial verses. But if you read it carefully, Paul is not saying
AFTER THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES will Israel be saved, but he said that
a prophecy would be fulfilled that would see Israel saved.
The prophecy was "All Israel shall be saved."
Verse 25's statement "Blindness
in part is happened to Israel," before a time when "all Israel shall be
saved."
BEFORE THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES ARE FULFILLED there is a remnant that would be saved.
During Paul's time, he sought for Israel to be saved.
READ THE WRITER’S OWN WORDS IN THE SAME BOOK
We can go back only two chapters in this writer’s very same book to learn who the "all Israel" is.
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They
which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:
but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The writer, himself, stated
that the only people whom God considers to be Israel are those who are
the children of the Promise. Who is the "all Israel" who shall be
saved? Paul said, "They are not all Israel, which are of
Israel." He restricted the "all Israel" to the children of promise, and
not the unbelieving Israel who rejected Christ. You must ignore this
information prior to Romans 11 in order to believe that Romans 11 is
speaking of the salvation of Israel outside the church.
God would save All Israel, but not after the church age, and not when a
time gentiles could not longer be saved. Everything about
the issue in Chapters 9 and 10 suggests that salvation for Israel will
occur through the gospel of the church and nothing else.
WHO IS THE DELIVERER WHO SHALL
TURN UNGODLINESS AWAY FROM JACOB?
Romans 11:26 And so all
Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion
the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Paul quoted the following:
Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
Isaiah writes in the next verse words that clarify this thought.
Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My
spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
This covenant is none other
than the New Testament plan of salvation! Again we see salvation
for Israel IN THE CHURCH.
And before verse 20 we read:
Isaiah 59:16-17 And he saw
that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor:
therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it
sustained him. For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an
helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of
vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.
This is clearly the plan of
salvation as we know it! What other covenant causes us to turn from
transgression or take away their sins besides Acts 2:38 and the
remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ?
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
What other means does God have
besides remission of sins in Jesus’ name that He uses in order
turn ungodliness away from anybody?
Romans 11:25 For I would
not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye
should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened
to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel
shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the
Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Romans 11:28 As concerning the
gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election,
they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Above Paul states that
then-presently there was a remnant not yet converted. They were still
enemies at that time, as far as the Christians were concerned. But that
would change.
Only one other verse refers to the fullness of the gentiles.
Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
And that is found written after the flowing:
Luke 21:20-22 And when ye
shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the
desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to
the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these
be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be
fulfilled.
This is undoubtedly referring
to 70 AD. When the Christians saw Jerusalem encompassed with armies,
they indeed did flee the city and went to Pella. Rome devastated the
city for 3.5 years. And Jesus said that event would end the times of
the gentiles. Jerusalem would be no more the home of the temple and the
ritual sacrifice of Law.
And that fits in with the thought that blindness can only happen
to one generation for their own sins, and not be carried down upon the
following generations. Their judgment was settled in AD70.
Blindness no longer existed after that time.
This explanation of Jesus’
words agrees with Daniel's vision of four beasts, the last being Rome,
with no further beasts, or kingdoms of concern, to follow.
Notice this connection:
Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
Reference to the gentiles being
given the opportunity to tread the holy city beneath their feet is
directly connected to Jesus' words concerning the times of the Gentiles.
© 2001 Michael F. Blume
mikeblume.com
mfblume1@aol.com