Daniel’s “Final Week” (70th Week) Has ALREADY Been Fulfilled

[cv5]

• Many expect a future 7-year tribulation as Daniel’s 70th week. But scripture and history show it was fulfilled in Christ's 3½-year ministry and the events of AD 66–70. Let’s examine Daniel 9.
  
  
• Daniel 9:24: “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people (Israel) and your holy city (All 70 weeks are about Israel), to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.”
  
  
• After 69 weeks the Messiah comes: Daniel 9:25–26 — “...to the coming of an anointed one, a prince... And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off (The Crucifixion)... And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary... Desolations are decreed.”
  
  
• Clarification: The Anointed One (Messiah) is cut off. The “prince who is to come” is a Different figure (since it just said The Anointed One is cut off) the "prince who is to come" is fulfilled in the Roman commander Titus, whose legions destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.
  
  
• The 70th week: Daniel 9:27 — “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering...”
  
  
• First half (AD 27–30/33): Jesus confirms the New Covenant in His 3½-year ministry. At the midpoint (the cross) He ends the old sacrifices: Hebrews 10:12,14 “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...”
  
  
• Last 3.5 years (AD 66/67–70): Cestius Gallus surrounded Jerusalem in AD 66 then suddenly retreated (allowing Christians to flee). Jewish civil war followed. In AD 70 Titus returned, besieged the city. After terrible suffering (famine and fighting), the Romans destroyed the Temple and much of Jerusalem. Josephus records ~1.1 million deaths and 97,000 taken captive.
  
  
• Jesus warned: Matthew 24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel... then let those who are in Judea flee...”
  
  
• Luke 21:20,22 (ESV): “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near... for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.” (Daniel 9:26)
  
  
• Note on 9:27: The “he” primarily refers to the Messiah (covenant and cross), while the Romans complete the desolations in the second half. Hebrew prophecy often works with layered fulfillment.
  
  
• Daniel 9:24’s Six goals were accomplished in Christ and the judgment of AD 70.
  
  
• Bottom line: Daniel’s final week (including the dramatic last 3½ years with armies appearing/retreating and final destruction) was fulfilled in the 1st century. “It is finished” (John 19:30).

For you to postulate this grave error of eschatology indicates a massive disconnect from sound Biblical exegesis. All to common in these last days. Tragically.

Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a prominent Messianic Jewish theologian and founder of Ariel Ministries, provides a highly systematic, literal, and grammatically precise interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27.

His teaching, particularly detailed in his landmark eschatological work *The Footsteps of the Messiah*, conclusively proves that the 70th week is a **future seven-year period** (the Tribulation) and demonstrates how this timeline perfectly aligns with the Pre-Tribulation *harpazo* (Rapture).

## 1. How Fruchtenbaum Proves the 70th Week is Yet Future
Fruchtenbaum’s proof rests on a literal reading of the Hebrew text, historical chronology, and the explicit scope of the prophecy.
### The Chronological "Gap" in Daniel 9:26
Daniel’s prophecy divides the 490 years (70 "sevens" of years) into three distinct periods: 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and 1 final week (7 years). Together, the first two periods equal 69 weeks (483 years).
Fruchtenbaum points out that Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
> *"And **after** the sixty-two weeks [which followed the first seven, totaling 69 weeks], an anointed one shall be cut off... and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."*
>
* **The Timing:** The Messiah's death ("cut off") and the destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple do not happen *during* the 69th week, nor do they happen *in* the 70th week. They happen **after** the 69th week has ended, but **before** the 70th week begins.
* **The Historical Proof:** The Messiah was crucified in approximately A.D. 30. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem occurred in A.D. 70. This 40-year historical interval proves that God's prophetic clock for Israel paused.
* **The Intermission:** Because these two major events happened in a historical "intermission" between the end of the 69th week and the start of the 70th, Fruchtenbaum proves that a chronological gap (the Church Age) exists.
### The Six Unfulfilled Purposes of Verse 24
Fruchtenbaum highlights the six divine goals decreed for **"your people [Israel] and your holy city [Jerusalem]"** in Daniel 9:24:
1. To finish the transgression
2. To make an end of sins
3. To atone for iniquity
4. To bring in everlasting righteousness
5. To seal up vision and prophecy
6. To anoint the most holy place
While the atonement was legally secured at the cross, Fruchtenbaum notes that these six conditions have **not yet been physically realized or applied to national Israel or Jerusalem**. Jerusalem is still trodden down by the Gentiles, and national Israel has not yet turned to her Messiah. Thus, the 70th week must be future to allow for these promises to be fully accomplished.
### The Triggering Event Has Not Happened
The 70th week is not triggered by the Rapture, nor does it begin automatically. According to Daniel 9:27, the final seven years officially start **only** when the Antichrist ("the prince who is to come") makes a firm, seven-year treaty/covenant with Israel. Since no such global leader has signed a seven-year security covenant with Israel in history, this week remains entirely future.
## 2. How the Future 70th Week Dovetails with the Harpazo
Fruchtenbaum’s dispensational framework illustrates how the *harpazo* (the catching up, or Rapture of the Church) beautifully harmonizes with this future timeline without causing theological contradictions:
| Concept | The Church (*Harpazo*) | Israel (Daniel's 70th Week) |
|---|---|---|
| **Direct Target** | The Body of Christ (Jew & Gentile believers) | "Thy people" (Israel) and "Thy holy city" (Jerusalem) |
| **Nature of Period** | A "Mystery" age not revealed in the Old Testament | The resumption of God's Old Testament program for Israel |
| **Divine Purpose** | To call out a bride for the Messiah | To bring Israel to national repentance through judgment |
### The Separation of Programs
Fruchtenbaum teaches that God has two distinct programs: one for Israel, and one for the Church. Because **all 70 weeks** of Daniel are strictly decreed for *Israel and Jerusalem* (Daniel 9:24), the Church has no part in them.
The Church Age is a "parenthesis" or mystery period inserted during the gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. Therefore, the Church must be physically removed via the *harpazo* before God's prophetic clock resumes ticking for Israel’s final seven years.
### No "Overlap" of Wraths
Scripture promises that the Church is "not destined for wrath" (1 Thessalonians 5:9). Because the 70th week is a period of global divine wrath (the Day of the Lord / Tribulation), the Church must be evacuated before this period begins.
### The Time Gap Between the Rapture and the Tribulation
A unique nuance of Fruchtenbaum's teaching is that **the Rapture does not start the Tribulation**. The signing of the covenant starts the Tribulation.
This means there could be a gap of days, months, or even years between the *harpazo* and the start of the 70th week. This gap allows ample time for:
* The post-Rapture chaos and global restructuring.
* The rise of the Antichrist to a position of global influence.
* The geopolitical conditions necessary for Israel to willingly sign a security covenant with him.
By keeping the Rapture (which is signless and imminent) separate from the trigger of the 70th week (the covenant), Fruchtenbaum maintains biblical consistency and preserves the "blessed hope" of the imminent return of Christ for His Bride.

 

[cv5]

I understand the futurist perspective, but I see some important problems with applying the entire 70 weeks (including the 70th week) to a future period where Israel as a nation accepts Jesus.


Daniel 9:24 says the 70 weeks are “determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city” to accomplish six specific things — including finishing transgression, making an end of sins, bringing in everlasting righteousness, and anointing the Most Holy.


These things were accomplished in Jesus Christ at the cross and through the New Covenant (Hebrews 9-10, Romans 3:21-26). The 70 weeks were about God’s dealing with Old Covenant Israel — not a future national acceptance.


Jesus Himself placed the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies (including the Abomination of Desolation and desolation of Jerusalem) in His own generation (Matthew 24:15, 34; Luke 21:20-24). He said “these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”


Regarding Romans 11 and the future salvation of Israel — I agree that God has not cast away His people and there is a future ingathering. But that does not require the 70 weeks clock to still be running. The 70 weeks were a specific timed prophecy for the coming of the Messiah and the end of the old covenant system, which was completed in the 1st century.


The “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 whose people destroy the city was fulfilled by the Romans under Titus in AD 70 — exactly as Jesus predicted.


I believe the 70 weeks were completely fulfilled, while God still has future plans for ethnic Israel as Romans 11 describes.


Curious what you think about Jesus’ time statements in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:34)?

---

On the contrary, the futurist perspective has ZERO problems.

-All identities preserved.
-No loose end verses left hanging.
-Every OT prophecy satisfied to impeccable perfection (including everything in Ezekiel 40-48).
-No paradoxes or conflicts whatsoever.
-All NT writings align with absolutely everything in the OT succinctly with utterly sublime perfection.

Frankly, the other supposed views are little more than absurd hogwash. And effortlessly debunked.

 

[cv5]

You’re assuming the “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 has to be the Antichrist. But the text never says that.


It simply says “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” That was literally fulfilled by the Romans under Titus in AD 70 — exactly as Jesus predicted would happen in His own generation.


It’s quite a stretch to turn a Roman general into the future Antichrist just because the text says “who is to come” (future from Daniel’s time). The prophecy was written in the 6th century BC. Of course the destroyer was still future then.


The text doesn’t call him the Antichrist. It doesn’t mention a 7-year peace treaty, a rebuilt temple in the future, or him sitting in a third temple. You’re reading all of that into the passage.


Meanwhile, the clear subject of the prophecy is the Messiah who is cut off, confirms the covenant, and puts an end to sacrifice in the middle of the week. That fits Jesus perfectly.


The idea that we have to insert the Antichrist here when the text never names him is a very forced interpretation.

Do yourself a big favor: scrap everything you think you know about Daniel 9:24-27 and start over. Seriously just throw it all into the dumpster. And rebuild your eschatology on solid biblical grounds.

If you DO NOT yet understand the 12 step Hebrew betrothal/wedding protocol and how this is ineffably and profoundly and SPECIFICALLY "married" (sorry) into everything Jesus said and did, and literally everything the OT and NT prophets uttered, you are never going to "get it". Never. Going. To. Get. It.

In his manuscript *The Jewish Wedding System and the Bride of Messiah* (MBS113) and his book *The Footsteps of the Messiah*, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum meticulously maps out the **ancient Hebrew wedding protocol** (distilling it into major phases comprising various steps) to demonstrate the relationship between Jesus and His Bride, the Church.
To understand how this aligns with the timeline of **Daniel 9:24–26**, you have to look at the transition of programs. The 70 weeks of Daniel are strictly decreed for *Israel* and *Jerusalem*, while the Church is a "mystery" body inserted into the historical gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.
Fruchtenbaum uses the Hebrew wedding steps to show exactly why this gap exists, how the Church's program is legally distinct, and why the *harpazo* (Rapture) is structurally required before the 70th week can begin.
## 1. The Betrothal & Daniel's 69th Week (First Coming)
According to Hebrew custom, a marriage is legally established long before the couple ever lives together. This initial phase contains the first key steps:
### Step 1: The Arrangement & The Bride Price (*Mohar*)
The father of the groom selects the bride and negotiates the *mohar* (the bride price) paid to her family.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** God the Father selected the Church. The bride price was not paid with silver or gold, but with the blood of the Messiah.
* **The Daniel 9 Alignment:** The 69th week terminated on **Nisan 10** when Jesus presented Himself at the Temple as the Lamb. Immediately after, during the prophetic gap, He was "cut off" (Crucified). His death on the cross was the payment of the *mohar*, legally securing His Bride.
### Step 2: The Marriage Covenant & Cup (*Ketubbah*)
A written contract, the *ketubbah*, is established to secure the bride’s rights, and the couple drinks from a cup of wine to seal the covenant.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** At the Last Supper, Jesus offered the cup, saying, *"This cup is the new covenant in my blood"* (Luke 22:20). When a believer places faith in Jesus, they enter this covenant. The legal status is *Erusin* (betrothed)—they are 100% legally married, though not yet living together.
## 2. The Separation & The Prophetic Gap (The Church Age)
Once betrothed, the groom and bride separate. This perfectly mirrors the historical "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks.
### Step 3: The Departure to the Father's House
The groom departs and returns to his father's house.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** Jesus ascended to heaven. He told His disciples: *"In my Father’s house are many rooms... I go to prepare a place for you"* (John 14:2–3).
### Step 4: The Period of Preparation & Purification
The bride remains in her home for a year or more. During this time, she prepares her garments and is observed for her purity and faithfulness.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** This represents the **Church Age**, occurring entirely within the gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. The Church is set apart and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, kept as a "chaste virgin" for Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2).
## 3. The Fetching of the Bride (The Harpazo)
The transition from the gap to the 70th week requires the physical evacuation of the Bride.
```
[ 69 Weeks ] ---------> [ Prophetic Gap / Church Age ] ---------> [ 70th Week ]
Messiah presented/cut off Betrothal / Groom prepares place The Tribulation (7 Years)
(Daniel 9:25-26) (John 14:1-3) (Daniel 9:27)
|
[ THE HARPAZO ]
Groom fetches His Bride

```
### Step 5: The Father’s Consent & The Surprise Return
The groom cannot return to get his bride until his father gives the word. The exact day or hour is unknown to the groom or bride; only the father decides when the wedding chamber is fully prepared.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** Jesus stated that *"about that day or hour no one knows... but only the Father"* (Matthew 24:36).
### Step 6: The Fetching (*Nisuin* / *Harpazo*)
Once given permission, the groom travels with his groomsmen at night. As they approach the bride's home, they raise a shout and blow the *shofar* (ram's horn). The bride, who has been waiting with oil in her lamps, is swept away to the groom's home.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** This is the **Rapture** (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Jesus descends with a shout and the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God sounds. He catches away ("harpaizo") His Bride into the air and takes her back to His Father’s house in heaven.
## 4. The 70th Week & The Wedding Chamber
This is where the Hebrew wedding protocol and Daniel's 70th week dovetail with flawless theological precision.
While the 70th week (the 7-year Tribulation) is playing out **on Earth** as a period of judgment and wrath for Israel and the nations, a completely different set of events is happening **in Heaven** for the Church:
### Step 7: The Seven Days in the Bridal Chamber (*Chuppah*)
Once the groom brings his bride to his father’s house, they enter the private *chuppah* (bridal chamber). They remain hidden inside the chamber for **seven days** to consummate the marriage.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** The seven days in the chamber represent the **seven years of Daniel's 70th week**.
* **The Dual Realities:** While the Antichrist is ruling the earth during the unfulfilled 70th week of Daniel 9:27, the Bride of Christ is safely hidden away in the Father's heavenly mansions. During these 7 years in heaven, the Church undergoes the *Bema* (Judgment Seat of Christ) to reward her righteous acts, preparing her garments.
### Step 8: The Marriage Supper of the Lamb
After the seven days of isolation, the groom and bride emerge from the chamber. The wedding feast (Marriage Supper) begins with a much larger group of invited guests.
* **The Messianic Fulfillment:** At the end of the 7-year Tribulation (the 70th week), Christ returns to earth in glory, and His Bride—now wearing her clean, white linen—is publicly revealed with Him (Revelation 19:7–9).
* **The Guests:** The "invited guests" to this great feast are the resurrected Old Testament saints and the Tribulation saints who survive the 70th week to enter the Millennial Kingdom.
> ### Summary of the Perfect Fit
> By aligning the Hebrew wedding steps, Fruchtenbaum proves the Rapture **must** occur before the 70th week. If the Rapture occurred at the Second Coming (Post-Tribulation), there would be no time for the Bride to go to the Father's house, no time to prepare her garments, and no **seven-unit period of isolation** (the *chuppah* matching Daniel's 7-year 70th week) before she is publicly revealed. The Hebrew wedding protocol demands that the Bride be fetched, hidden away for seven "days", and then revealed.

>

 

[cv5]

Also, why don’t animals have souls and humans do? What is the one difference between human and animals that we can speak. It’s OK I’m just trying to show people the truth but not everybody’s gonna see it. Everybody’s on their own journey. I’m just supposed to plant the seed. It’s Jesus who makes it grow.

You say that animals don't have souls?
I think that you had better hit the Book and discover that you are woefully mistaken.

 

[GaryA]

The remaining three and a half years of the prophecy concluded in the autumn of A.D. 34, marked by the stoning of Stephen and the gospel being taken to the Gentiles.

Exactly.

There is no gap - not even one second - 490 years straight - from beginning to end - ending in 34 A.D - prophecy fulfilled perfectly.

While it is true that it is mentioned in the prophecy, the events of circa 70 A.D. are totally outside of the 70 weeks span of time itself.

 

[cv5]

The Hebrew text has two anointed ones.

“...to the coming of an anointed one, a prince/leader/forerunner…” This IMO is John the Baptist, the fore-runner of Christ.

"And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off (The Crucifixion).” This IMO is Christ. He is not the same anointed one as the one mentioned before, because then He would have been referred to grammatically as the anointed one.

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary... Desolations are decreed.” This prince IMO is John the Baptist, since he is introduced with the definite article, - the ruler, leader, forerunner. The Hebrew word for shall destroy is an imperfective/incomplete Hiphil form of the verb, which has a causative meaning. The people of the forerunner do not destroy the city and sanctuary. They cause the city and sanctuary to be destroyed (by somene else). The people/tribe of Jhn the Baptist were the Levites. They brought destruction on Jerusalem and the temple by continuing to sacrifice lambs, sheep, bulls and goats when the perfect sacrifice had been offered by Jesus. And by persecuting the saints Jesus d=sent to them with the Gospel.

Isa 66:3
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offerethan oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, theyhave chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
Isa 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.
Isa 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out formy name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.
Isa 66:6
A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

Utterly preposterous in every way.....

The interpretation you've laid out is "highly creative", but from a linguistic, grammatical, and structural standpoint in Biblical Hebrew, it is completely indefensible.

To demonstrate why, we have to look closely at the actual Hebrew text of **Daniel 9:25–26**. Let's break down the grammatical errors of this theory one by one.
## 1. The "Two Anointed Ones" and the Definite Article Fallacy
The argument relies on the idea that because the first is called "an anointed one" (indefinite) and the second is also "an anointed one," they must be different figures because the second isn't referred to as *"the"* anointed one.
### The Hebrew Reality:
In Biblical Hebrew, **there is no indefinite article** (no word for "a" or "an"). A noun is made definite by prefixing the letter *He* (\text{ה} - "the").
* **Daniel 9:25:** "...unto an anointed one, a prince..." (\text{עַד־מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד} - *ʿad-māšîaḥ nāgîd*). Notice there is no definite article (*ha-*) before *māšîaḥ*.
* **Daniel 9:26:** "...an anointed one shall be cut off..." (\text{יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ} - *yikkārēṯ māšîaḥ*). Again, there is no definite article.
Grammatically, *both* occurrences are anarthrous (lacking the definite article). Because both are grammatically indefinite, the text does not use grammar to signal they are different people. If the author wanted to strictly show that the second *māšîaḥ* was a completely different, newly introduced figure, they would not simply repeat the exact same bare noun.
Furthermore, the structure of the Hebrew poetic parallel links them: the first is introduced as arriving after a set of weeks (7 + 62), and the second is cut off *after* that same sixty-two-week period. Grammatically separating them based on "definite vs. indefinite" is a complete misunderstanding of Hebrew syntax.

## 2. The Myth of the "Forerunner Prince" in Verse 26
The argument states: *"This prince IMO is John the Baptist, since he is introduced with the definite article, - the ruler, leader, forerunner."*
This is a massive grammatical error.
### The Hebrew Reality:
Let's look at the actual phrase in Hebrew for *"the people of the prince who is to come"* from Daniel 9:26:

*(ʿam nāgîd habbāʾ)*
1. **The Construct State:** The words *ʿam* (people) and *nāgîd* (prince/leader) are in a **construct chain**. In Hebrew grammar, the first noun (*ʿam*) loses its definite article, and its definiteness is determined entirely by the absolute noun that follows it.

2. **Neither Word is Definite:** The word *nāgîd* (prince) **does not have a definite article**. It is not *ha-nagid* ("the prince"). It is simply *nagid* ("a prince"). Therefore, the entire chain is indefinite: *"a people of a prince."*

3. **The Participle:** The word *habbāʾ* ("the coming" or "who is to come") *does* have the definite article (\text{הַ} - *ha*), but this is a relative participle modifying the indefinite noun *nāgîd* to mean "who is coming."

The text literally reads: **"a people of a coming prince."** Far from being introduced with a specific, highly definite title ("*the* forerunner"), the grammar leaves this "prince" completely indefinite and separate from the "anointed prince" of verse 25.

## 3. The Absurd Abuse of the Hiphil Verb (*Yashchit*)
The most grammatically broken part of the theory is the claim that: *"The Hebrew word for 'shall destroy' is an imperfective/incomplete Hiphil form of the verb, which has a causative meaning... They caused the city and sanctuary to be destroyed."*
This is a classic case of knowing just enough Hebrew grammar to be dangerous, but not enough to understand how Hebrew verbs actually function.

### The Hebrew Reality:
The verb used is **\text{יַשְׁחִית}** (*yashchit*), which is indeed the Hiphil imperfect of the root **\text{שָׁחַת}** (*shachath*).
1. **Lexical Meaning:** In Hebrew, the Hiphil stem is the standard, active causative stem. However, for many verbs, **the Hiphil has a direct, active transitive meaning.** For the root *shachath*, the Hiphil doesn't mean "to cause someone else to destroy" (which would be a double-causative or require a secondary agent); **it simply means "to destroy, corrupt, ruin, or lay waste."**
* For example, in Genesis 6:13, God says, *"I am about to destroy them"* (\text{מַשְׁחִיתָם} - Hiphil participle). God did not "cause someone else" to do it; He did it Himself.
* In Genesis 19:13, the angels say, *"We are about to destroy this place"* (\text{מַשְׁחִיתִים} - Hiphil participle). Again, they are the direct physical agents of destruction.
2. **The Subject of the Verb:** The subject of the verb *yashchit* ("shall destroy") is **\text{עַם}** (*ʿam* - "the people"). Grammatically, the "people" are the direct nominative subject performing the action.
3. **The Object of the Verb:** The direct objects are **\text{הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ}** (*hāʿîr wəhaqqōḏeš* - "the city and the sanctuary").
If you translate this sentence according to basic Hebrew syntax, it says: **"The people of the coming prince shall [directly] destroy the city and the sanctuary."** There is absolutely no grammatical room for "they caused someone else to destroy it." The grammar identifies the "people" as the direct, literal agents of the physical leveling of the city and temple.
## 4. Historical and Contextual Incoherence
Even if we ignored the broken grammar, the structural narrative of the theory collapses on itself:
* **The Levites as "Destroyers":** To claim the Levites (the "people of John") "caused" the Roman legions to physically destroy the Temple in 70 AD because they kept sacrificing animals is a historical and theological mess. The Roman army under Titus leveled the temple due to a violent Jewish political rebellion, not because of Levites performing Torah-mandated sacrifices.
* **The Forerunner's People:** John the Baptist's primary identity in the Gospels is not "leader of the Levites," but a voice crying in the wilderness. The "people of John the Baptist" would be his disciples (who actually transitioned to follow Jesus), not the temple-bound corrupt priesthood that John himself actively preached against.
> **Summary:** The theory relies on grammar that does not exist in Hebrew. It invents definite articles where there are none, invents a "delegated" causation for a standard active verb, and tries to force a historical narrative t
hat contradicts the literal text.
>

 

[cv5]

Exactly.

There is no gap - not even one second - 490 years straight - from beginning to end - ending in 34 A.D - prophecy fulfilled perfectly.

While it is true that it is mentioned in the prophecy, the events of circa 70 A.D. are totally outside of the 70 weeks span of time itself.

I am going to thoroughly enjoy shellacking your absurd biblically illiterate historist views.

Again. And again and again.
You have never prevailed and never will.

 

[cv5]

Exactly.

There is no gap - not even one second - 490 years straight - from beginning to end - ending in 34 A.D - prophecy fulfilled perfectly.

While it is true that it is mentioned in the prophecy, the events of circa 70 A.D. are totally outside of the 70 weeks span of time itself.

Oh and BTW, the intended types so provided by:

-Joseph and his brothers
-Samson and his philistine wife
-Ruth Naomi and Boaz
-Gomer and Hosea

Prove the futurist (and gap) view of Daniel 9:24-27 beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt.

And I know (surely know), that you, nor any preterist or historicist on this thread has the slightest understanding of how or why. Because if you did, you would dump your bags, and become a "dispensationalist futurist".

 

[cv5]

Every time Jesus spoke. He would say verily or truly two times each. The reason he did that was because he was giving two witnesses. The father and the son. The father is the witness of the Old Testament and the son is the witness of the New Testament.

The Premise is Factually Untrue
The claim starts with: "Every time Jesus spoke, He would say verily or truly two times each."

This is factually incorrect. Jesus did not double the word every time He spoke.
The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke): Jesus uses the single form ("Verily I say to you" or "Truly I say to you") dozens of times. For example, in Matthew 5:18, He says: "For truly (Amen) I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away..."

The Gospel of John: The double form ("Verily, verily" or "Truly, truly") is unique to the Gospel of John, where it appears exactly 25 times.

If doubling the word was a systemic theological formula representing the Father and the Son for "every time He spoke," it would not be entirely absent from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

2. Grammatical Reality: What "Verily" Actually Means
The word translated as "verily" or "truly" in our English Bibles is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word Amen (\alpha\mu\eta\nu).
In ancient Jewish culture, Amen was used at the end of a prayer or statement to mean "let it be so" or "I agree".

Jesus did something completely revolutionary: He put Amen at the beginning of His statements.
By saying "Amen, I say to you," He was essentially saying, "I don't need to wait for you to agree with this; I am swearing by my own authority that what I am about to say is absolute truth."

 

[WayneNSO]

All you futurist out there - I know that you only like watching movies such as "Left Behind" or reading books such as "The late great Planet Earth" or listening to some celebrity preacher who tell you what you want to hear, but if you did a proper Bible study you would see there is NO GAP in Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy, no anti-Christ sitting in a rebuilt temple in the future. It is the only conclusion you can come to by studying the Bible itself rather than listening to some X-Factor preacher.

 

[WayneNSO]

The seventy weeks are split into three parts. Firstly the 7 weeks or 49 years in which the temple was restored and Jerusalem rebuilt. The 62 weeks or 434 years from that time until the coming of the Messiah. And then we have the final week of the Messiahs ministry.

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.

The prophecy tells us the weeks commence with the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem

Ezra 7:11 Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel.
12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time.
13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

Ezra 9:9 For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.

The majority of historians and bible scholars date this decree at 457 B.C.

If we apply 483 years to 457 B.C. we arrive at the year 27 A.D.

Jesus the son of God became the anointed one or Messiah when he was baptised in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which was 27 A.D.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

This marks the start of the 70th week and the start of the earthly ministry of the Messiah.

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Now after his Baptism and after Herod had put John the Baptist in prison, we have this prophetic announcement from Jesus:

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The 69th week ended there and began the 70th week.

Jesus was born about 4 B.C. Making him about 30 years of age in 27 A.D.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

It is interesting to note that at this point Jesus is called Messiah the Prince, not Messiah the King. This prophecy predicted the earthly ministry of the Messiah. If he was destined to replace all earthly rule at his first appearing then he would of been called King. But instead he was called Messiah the Prince.

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

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Daniel 9 verse 26, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off" There we have the Crucifixion. A score is 20, so threescore is 60 and two weeks, that's 62. So after 62 weeks which naturally follows the first 7 weeks, "shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself" It was for us that he suffered, it was for us that he was Crucified, it was not for himself.

Isaiah also prophesied that the Messiah would be cut off, Isaiah 53:8:

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And the angel states in the second part of the verse that there will be a punishment. "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; When Daniel was receiving this, the sanctuary and the city hadn't even been rebuilt yet. And now the angel is saying its going to be destroyed again.

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.

Note that the prince of verse 26 is not the same as the anointed prince of verse 25. The prince of verse 26 comes after the anointed Prince has been cut off.

. . .from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince . . .
Daniel 9:25

. . . Messiah be cut off, . . . and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . .
Daniel 9:26

I will do another post for the rest .. this is looking a very long post

 

[dkontner]

The 70th week is approaching

 

[WayneNSO]

Ok here is the second half of the previous post

Before we look at the prince that will destroy the city, lets take a close look at verses 26 and 27.

We clearly see here that the same two clauses in verse 26 are repeated in verse 27, but in a different way so as to give us more details.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, . . . . . and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city . . .

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.

"And he" thats the Messiah, "shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:" That's the New Covenant, with Daniels people the Jews for one week or seven years.

"and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," That's the Crucifixion. now, we have the exact time of the Messiahs cutting off, in the midst of the week, or 3 and half years from the start of His ministry.

The covenant that Israel was waiting for was prophesied in Jeremiah 31 verses 31 to 33, and quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13

Jeremiah 31:31 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:
32 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:
33 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.

Before he died, Jesus proclaimed, in Matthew 26 verses 27 to 28:

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Scripture seems quite clear on this point, the covenant referred to by the prophet Daniel was the New Covenant, and it was Jesus who confirmed it. Not some antichrist in the future, who makes a covenant with the Jews in Palestine.

And Christ caused animal sacrifices and ceremonial things of the law to be nailed to the cross with him.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Daniel 9 verse 27 said, "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

Jesus personally fulfilled the first half of the week. Jesus' earthly ministry lasted three and half years. He was crucified in the middle of the prophetic week. The veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom, causing an end to the sacrifices and Jesus becoming our high priest, we need no other high priest to access God but Jesus.

Verse 27, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" This covenant must be confirmed with the tribe of Judah for 7 years.

Before Christ ascended into heaven he said to his disciples, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," Matthew 28 verse 19. To go out into the whole known world and preach the good news of the Kingdom primarily to the house of Israel that were scattered abroad. But they did not do that immediately, they preached to the Jews exclusively for another three and half years. So that the covenant can be confirmed with Daniels house of people, the house of Judah for that one week of years.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

And in Romans chapter 1 verse 16, we read:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Most scholars date the martyrdom of Stephen by the Jews, around 3 years after the crucifixion of Christ in 33 A.D.

Acts 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

The same Saul that would be at first a persecutor consenting to the death of Stephen, and yet would soon become Paul the Apostle to the gentiles.

About 6 months after the martyrdom of Stephen, we have this in Acts 8 verse 5:

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

So why did Philip do that? Did he not know that Christ had forbidden to preach in Samaria? The Holy Spirit had released them to preach to the gentiles, the 70 weeks were served off, it is that simple.

The Apostle Paul says this in Acts chapter 13:

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

The covenant with the Jews was confirmed for one week, just as the angel Gabriel has stated "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression" (v24)

Now lets look at the remaining part of the prophecy, the consequences of the Jews rejecting Christ.

Think I'll do another post for it - this ones getting to long

 

[WayneNSO]

Now lets look at the remaining part of the prophecy, the consequences of the Jews rejecting Christ.

The last part of Daniel 9:27, "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel was prophecing of an abomination to come after the Messiah.

During His ministry Jesus warned of this abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet. The overspreading or the continuation of sacrifices, rejecting the one true sacrifce of Our Lord was an abomination to God. And this is what would cause their desolation.

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Now let us listen to what Our Lord proclaims in Matthew 23.

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 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!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

And in Luke 21:20:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 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.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Daniel 9 verse 26, "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"

And this is exactly what happened under the Roman Prince Titus in 70 A.D.

The siege of Jerusalem began under Titus' father Vespasian, after the death of Nero, there was a battle for the throne, and Vespasian was summoned back to Rome to become emperor. And left Titus in charge of the final stages of the seige. So Titus the general now becomes a Prince, right on time to fulfill the prophecy.

Prince Titus took command of his people, the Romans and laid Jerusalem waste.


By making a gap at the end of the 69th week and slinging the 70th week far into the future. They are trying to us that the prophetic clock had stopped ticking after the 69th week, bypassing the whole age of the New Covenant, bypassing the whole church age and focusing instead upon the Jews and a re-establishment of the sacrifices and the oblations.

 

[JustThinking]

You’re assuming the “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 has to be the Antichrist. But the text never says that.
The idea that we have to insert the Antichrist here when the text never names him is a very forced interpretation.

Here is part of a narrative taken from my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) speaking to 9:26:

Part 1 of 2

And the people of the prince who is to come

This brief yet weighty phrase— “the people of the prince who is to come”—has sparked intense debate and diverging interpretations for centuries.

The identity of this mysterious “prince” has become one of the most contested topics in all of eschatology. Much hinges on how one interprets not only who this prince is, but also when he comes and which people belong to him. Broadly speaking, interpreters tend to link this phrase to one of three historical or prophetic contexts, each tied to a specific Temple era:

One view identifies the “people” as the Roman legions who destroyed Jerusalem under the command of General Titus. In this interpretation, Titus is the “prince who is to come,” and the prophecy is seen as fulfilled after the death and resurrection of Jesus in 70 AD.

Some scholars connect the prophecy to the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the second Temple during the intertestamental period. In this view, the “prince” refers to a foreign oppressor or local antagonist who attacked the city and Sanctuary during the tumultuous years after the Babylonian exile. However, this interpretation does not align with the seventy-weeks’ timeline or the appearance of the Messiah and thus creates inconsistencies with the prophecy’s structure.

The most widely held view in modern dispensationalist circles projects this prophecy into the future, assigning it to a rebuilt third Temple in Jerusalem. Here, the “prince” is often understood to be this mythical antichrist, who will supposedly make a covenant with Israel, break it mid-week, and then desecrate the Temple, initiating a terrible tribulation period. In this model, the “people” are his followers or military forces, expected to carry out destruction during the end times. This third view, though popular, requires a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks—disrupting the prophetic sequence and detaching the passage from the context of Christ's first coming. Moreover, it relies on speculation about a future Temple not mentioned in Daniel 9, and inserts into the text a future figure that Gabriel never names. This is the product of the futurist interpretation authored by the Jesuit priest, Ribera.

Many interpretations of Daniel 9:26 begin by choosing a Temple and a time period, then assigning an identity to “a prince,” and finally deciding who “his people” must be. But is that the best method?

What if there is a more faithful path—one that begins not with external speculation, but with the inspired structure of the chapter itself? Daniel 9 gives us internal clues. Across the chapter there are five occurrences across four reference-types involving “prince” language (and one crucial moment where the title is deliberately withheld). If we follow how Daniel and Gabriel use these terms—and pay attention to the subtle shifts between the restorative and destructive verses—we can approach the identity of “the prince who is to come” with greater textual discipline, rather than beginning with military history or end-time theories.

1) Generic “Princes” — Daniel 9:6 and 9:8​

The first two references appear in Daniel’s confession:

“neither have we heeded your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings and our princes…” (v.6)​

​

“o lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers…” (v.8)​

These are generic references to Israel’s leaders who failed to listen to God’s prophets. Importantly, the prophetic title nagiyd is not used here. Daniel is not identifying a foretold figure; he is confessing the guilt of Israel’s historical leadership.

2) “Messiah the Prince” — Daniel 9:25​

Then the prophecy turns, and a different kind of “prince” appears:

“until messiah the prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks…” (v.25)​

Here “Messiah” is joined to “Prince,” and the Hebrew title nagiyd is used. This is no ordinary ruler. This is a divinely appointed figure—the Anointed One. In the restorative verse, Gabriel speaks with clarity and honor: Jerusalem is named, and the Messiah is presented with a royal title. The city is identified. The Messiah is enthroned in the wording. The prophecy is moving toward restoration and arrival. The structure is deliberate: the first seven weeks highlight rebuilding and restoration; the sixty-two that follow carry Israel forward in expectation until the arrival of the Messiah at the appointed time.

3) “Messiah” (title withheld) — Daniel 9:26​

Immediately after the restorative verse comes the first destructive line:

“after the sixty-two weeks, messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.” (v.26)​

Notice what changes. The word “Prince” is not repeated. Gabriel does not say, “Messiah the Prince shall be cut off.” He says simply, “Messiah.” The identity remains the same person as verse 25, but the presentation shifts. The prophecy moves from arrival to sacrifice; from royal emphasis to substitutionary death. The crown-language fades, and the cross-language dominates.

This appears intentional. In verse 25, the Messiah is described in His royal role—as the appointed Prince arriving to fulfill God’s plan. In verse 26, He is portrayed not as the enthroned Prince, but as the sacrificial Lamb—cut off for others, not for Himself. The title of rule is withheld as though the prophecy itself is showing what the gospel will later reveal: the Prince lays down His crown to take up the cross.

At the same time, the place-names shift. In verse 25, Gabriel says “Jerusalem.” In verse 26, the city is no longer named; it becomes simply “the city” and “the sanctuary.” Proper names and honor-titles withdraw. The tone turns judicial. This mirrors the grief-filled transition we see in the Gospels. Jesus cleanses the Temple and calls it “My house” (Matthew 21:12–13). Later, after rejection, He says, “Behold, your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). That shift—my house to your house—is not semantic. It is judicial. It marks the withdrawal of recognized ownership and presence because of national rejection. Daniel 9:26 carries a similar weight: the vocabulary tightens, the names fade, and the prophecy speaks in the language of consequence.

​

 

[JustThinking]

You’re assuming the “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 has to be the Antichrist. But the text never says that.


It simply says “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” That was literally fulfilled by the Romans under Titus in AD 70 — exactly as Jesus predicted would happen in His own generation.


It’s quite a stretch to turn a Roman general into the future Antichrist just because the text says “who is to come” (future from Daniel’s time). The prophecy was written in the 6th century BC. Of course the destroyer was still future then.


The text doesn’t call him the Antichrist. It doesn’t mention a 7-year peace treaty, a rebuilt temple in the future, or him sitting in a third temple. You’re reading all of that into the passage.


Meanwhile, the clear subject of the prophecy is the Messiah who is cut off, confirms the covenant, and puts an end to sacrifice in the middle of the week. That fits Jesus perfectly.


The idea that we have to insert the Antichrist here when the text never names him is a very forced interpretation.

Part 2 of 2

4) “The People of the Prince Who Is to Come” — Daniel 9:26​

Now we reach the controversial phrase:

“the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…” (v.26)​

This is the only other place in Daniel 9 where the Hebrew title nagiyd appears besides verse 25. But now “Messiah” is absent. That combination matters. It signals that this figure is neither the generic “princes” of Daniel’s prayer (v.6, v.8) nor the titled “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25.

He is a distinct nagiyd—a coming ruler connected to the people who bring destruction. And here is the key nuance: God could have used a common, generic word for ruler here, as Daniel did earlier in his prayer. But He does not. He uses the elevated, purpose-weighted term nagiyd again—without granting the identifying title “Messiah.”

The effect is deliberate. It marks this “prince” as more than a mere military administrator, yet also exposes him as something other than the true Anointed One. He is presented as a counterfeit-prince — a figure who will rise clothed in sacred authority, imitating the posture of divine leadership while lacking the divine identity that belongs to Christ alone. By assigning him the elevated title nagiyd without pairing it with “Messiah,” the text subtly signals that this ruler will not merely govern politically, but will assume a role that encroaches upon divine prerogative. He will not deny God outright; he will claim to represent Him. He will not reject sacred authority; he will assert that he embodies it.

In this way, the wording anticipates a ruler who positions himself as the visible head of God’s people on earth — speaking in God’s name, defining doctrine, mediating forgiveness, and exercising authority over conscience as though heaven itself had vested him with Christ’s office. The absence of the title “Messiah” is therefore not accidental. It is protective. God withholds the true Anointed designation while still using the royal term nagiyd to expose the dangerous resemblance. This prince will present himself as Christ’s earthly stand-in — even as he rises in opposition to the true Prince of princes. The text does not call him Messiah because he is not the Anointed One — but it calls him nagiyd because he will claim a place that looks strikingly similar.

Historically, many identify this with Titus and the Roman forces who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. As a surface-level fulfillment, the fit is strong: Rome is the destroying “people,” and Titus stands as the associated ruler. Daniel does show that God uses foreign powers as instruments of judgment—Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and others—so the idea of Rome serving this role is not foreign to Daniel’s pattern. But the verse is phrased carefully. It does not say the prince destroys the city; it says his people do. The destruction is attributed first to the people, and the prince is described as “to come.” That wording allows the prince to be tied to the Roman world and its legacy without requiring him to be the field commander in the moment of destruction. It can point to a ruler who emerges from that same people after the devastation—a later authority arising from the aftermath.

This opens the door to a deeper prophetic layer that aligns with Daniel’s visions. Rome’s people destroy the city and the sanctuary, and out of the Roman world—after Jerusalem’s fall and after pagan Rome’s eventual collapse—another power rises. In Daniel’s language elsewhere, this is the trajectory of the little horn: a deceptive, blasphemous force that emerges from the Roman sphere, takes on a religious-political identity, and stands in opposition to the true Prince of princes (Daniel 8:25). In that reading, Daniel’s post-cross arc unfolds in three movements:

Rome’s people destroy the city and the sanctuary (the historical devastation).​

​

The prince who is to come rises later from among them—the little horn emerging from Rome’s legacy.​

​

He rules over that legacy—not mainly by military conquest, but by spiritual authority, claiming Christ’s place while opposing Christ’s truth.​

So the language of Daniel 9:25–26 is not incidental. Names and titles appear in restoration; they withdraw in judgment. The Messiah is introduced as Prince; He is cut off as sacrifice. And then another nagiyd appears—untitled, ambiguous, “to come”—linked to the destroying people and pointing forward to the long arc of counterfeit power Daniel had unveiled in chapters 7 and 8.

In this way, the text itself guides the reader. It does not require us to begin with speculation. It invites us to watch what Heaven emphasizes, what Heaven withholds, and how the prophecy’s own structure distinguishes the Messiah from the prince who follows—so we can identify “the prince who is to come,” and understand just who “his people” are, in both the historical and prophetic layers Daniel is presenting.

Chiastic structure for 9:24 - 27​

A — Spiritual restoration
Daniel 9:24 — sin, atonement, righteousness, prophecy, Most Holy

B — Physical restoration​

Daniel 9:25a — Jerusalem restored and rebuilt​

C — True/restorative Prince​

Daniel 9:25b — Messiah the Prince comes​

C′ — False/destructive prince (little horn)​

Daniel 9:26 — the prince who is to come, identified by the destroying people​

B′ — Physical destruction​

Daniel 9:26 — city and sanctuary destroyed​

A′ — Spiritual consequence
Daniel 9:27 — covenant confirmed, sacrifices cease, abomination/desolation follows


Why the “prince who is to come” belongs opposite Messiah the Prince

The phrase “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 belongs to the restorative half. He is the anointed Prince who comes after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and through whom the redemptive goals of verse 24 are fulfilled. But verse 26 introduces another prince — not “Messiah the Prince,” but “the prince who is to come.” He is not introduced by anointing, restoration, righteousness, or covenant fulfillment. He is introduced through his people, and his people are identified by destruction:

“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”​

That means his identity is tied to the power responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Historically, that destruction came through Rome in AD 70. Therefore, the coming prince belongs to the Roman sphere and later develops in the same stream of opposition seen elsewhere in Daniel — especially the little horn power.

So the contrast is deliberate:

Messiah the Prince comes to restore.
The coming prince arises from the destroying power.

Messiah the Prince confirms the covenant and ends sacrifice by fulfillment.
The coming prince is associated with the desolating power that follows rejection.

Messiah brings the spiritual restoration of verse 24.
The coming prince belongs to the destructive consequences of verse 26.

 

[Beekeeper]

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.

If this verse is about the Antichrist, a gap of an undefined time period must be inserted in to the prophesy.
That is reason enough to know for sure that it is not about Antichrist.
The time- line is prophesy too.

 

[JustThinking]

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.

If this verse is about the Antichrist, a gap of an undefined time period must be inserted in to the prophesy.
That is reason enough to know for sure that it is not about Antichrist.
The time- line is prophesy too.

Here is part of a narrative taken from my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) speaking to 9:27:

He and the Covenant

The verses in Daniel 9 are a direct response to Daniel’s prayer—a prayer grounded in covenant faithfulness, confession, and longing for restoration. And the divine answer he receives is nothing less than a prophetic blueprint for salvation, culminating in the coming of the Messiah, the Anointed One. Daniel’s focus is not a distant end-time figure inserted from outside the text; it is the Messiah Himself. The “He” of Daniel 9:27a refers to the Messiah.

This Messiah is the One who “confirms the covenant with many” during the final week. He is the same “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25, who arrives after the sixty-nine weeks, and who is then “cut off, but not for Himself” in verse 26. The covenant He confirms is not new in God’s heart or God’s purpose—it is the covenant promise God has been unfolding from Abraham onward—but now brought to its appointed completion through the Messiah. What was once administered through shadows—priests, offerings, and ritual blood—is now ratified by the true sacrifice: His own blood.

As Hebrews explains, the former covenantal system could not accomplish what it continually pointed toward. Its sacrifices testified to sin, but could not remove it (Hebrews 10:1–4). Christ enters not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with His own blood (Hebrews 9:12). He is the surety of a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22), established on better promises (Hebrews 8:6)—because it is grounded in a better Priest and a final, sufficient offering.

Under the old administration, God’s people were marked by physical circumcision; under the new, God marks His people by circumcision of the heart (Philippians 3:3). This is the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31–34—a covenant written not on tablets of stone, but inwardly, on the hearts of those who receive it. It is personal, permanent, and unalterable—not dependent on external ritual or human mediators, but sealed by the Holy Spirit.

“They shall all know Me… for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34)​

The Messiah’s blood inaugurates this covenant (Matthew 26:28), making reconciliation possible for both Jew and Gentile. The “one week” of Daniel 9:27 is the final week of the seventy-weeks prophecy—a literal seven-year period. In the middle of the week, after three and a half years of ministry, Jesus is crucified—confirming the covenant not with ritual repetition, but with His own blood. He fulfills every sacrificial shadow. The daily offerings, the Day of Atonement, the blood at the mercy seat—each was a signpost pointing forward to Him. As Paul writes:

“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ… so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace… that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross.” (Ephesians 2:13–16)​

In Christ, the dividing wall falls. The veil is torn. Jew and Gentile are reconciled into one spiritual body—not through a future political arrangement, but through the cross.

Historical Note on the Development of the Futurist Interpretation

During the Protestant Reformation, many Reformers contended that the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 represented the papal system. In response to these claims, alternative interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies began to emerge within the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation.

One significant development came from the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera (1537–1591), who proposed that the prophecies concerning the antichrist—including Daniel 9:27—should be applied not to the papacy, but to a future, singular end-time individual. It is noteworthy that the term “antichrist” does not appear anywhere in the Book of Daniel; nevertheless, Ribera identified the “he” of Daniel 9:27 with such a future figure. His interpretation shifted the fulfillment of key prophetic passages away from the medieval Church and into a distant future period.

Another Jesuit interpreter, Luis de Alcazar, developed a preterist framework that located much of Revelation’s fulfillment within the early centuries of Christianity. Together, these interpretive models redirected prophetic focus away from contemporary Rome. Over time, Ribera’s futurist framework was adopted and adapted within certain Protestant movements.

In the nineteenth century, it gained broader popularity through the development of dispensational theology, eventually becoming widespread in modern evangelical eschatology. Within this system, the “he” of Daniel 9:27 is reassigned to a future antichrist figure, and a chronological gap is inserted between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. While this futurist interpretation has become influential in modern theology, it was not the dominant reading among early Christian writers or the Reformers. The present commentary returns to the immediate literary and grammatical context of Daniel 9, allowing the seventy weeks to function as a unified prophetic period centered on the Messiah.

 

[Roger316]

It's simple, really. The prophecy concerns 490 years, beginning when Babylon granted Israel permission to rebuild the temple and ending with the stoning of Stephen. It's been almost two millennia since then. Daniel 9 is fulfilled.

 

[JustThinking]

I would say the second half of the week was the deciples teaching the Jews. Filled with the Holy Spirit, they were lead by the Spirit. The time was important for the people to choose Jesus and accept the truth. Most Jews still reject the gospel of Jesus today.

Here is part of the narrative found in my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) speaking to verse 9:27:


One Week

The phrase “one week” in Daniel 9:27 stands at the center of longstanding interpretive debate. Some theological systems separate this final week from the preceding sixty-nine and project it into the distant future, constructing a seven-year tribulation governed by a future antichrist figure. This approach—first articulated during the Counter-Reformation and later developed within modern dispensationalism—introduces a chronological gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. Yet the text itself gives no indication of such a pause.

Daniel presents the seventy weeks as a unified prophetic period—seventy sevens, or 490 years—decreed upon Daniel’s people and holy city (Daniel 9:24). The progression is sequential and uninterrupted: decree, rebuilding, Messiah’s arrival after sixty-nine weeks, Messiah cut off, covenant confirmed. The seventieth week is not detached from the sixty-nine; it is their culmination. The Hebrew construction reinforces this continuity. The text simply reads:

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many — one week.”​

There is no explicit preposition before “one week.” Hebrew frequently expresses duration without inserting a word equivalent to the English “for.” As a result, the phrase may be translated “for one week,” “during one week,” or “within one week.” The emphasis is temporal—it identifies the span in which the covenant is strengthened. It does not describe a negotiated treaty lasting seven years, but a covenant confirmed within the final segment of the prophetic timeline.

This grammatical observation aligns naturally with the structure already established in the chapter. The final week is the last division of the seventy. It does not stand apart from them; it completes them. Within this final week:

The Messiah appears and begins His public ministry (27 AD).​

​

In the midst of the week—after three and a half years—He is “cut off” (30/31 AD), bringing sacrifice and offering to their appointed fulfillment (Daniel 9:27; Hebrews 10:10–12).​

​

The remaining three and a half years extend to 34 AD, completing the seventy weeks, during which the gospel is proclaimed primarily to Israel before the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7–8).​

The week is therefore not a suspended future event awaiting fulfillment. It is the climactic moment of redemptive history—the divinely appointed window in which the Messiah arrives, ministers, is cut off, and confirms the covenant. To remove the seventieth week from the seventy fractures the very structure the prophecy carefully builds. Daniel does not suggest a parenthesis. He reveals a completion. And this final week was no ordinary span of years. It was a week set apart for the Messiah Himself. It was the sacred interval in which He would fulfill the six redemptive objectives of Daniel 9:24—to finish transgression, make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal vision and prophecy, and anoint the Most Holy.

In the sanctuary pattern woven throughout Scripture, this week represents the restoration of what had long been missing—the true Ark of the Covenant. Not a wooden chest overlaid with gold, but the living presence of God in the Son. In Christ, mercy and law meet again. The covenant is no longer carried in a chamber; it is embodied in the Messiah who stands at the center of history. The seventieth week is not merely chronological. It is covenantal. It is the appointed moment when God restores His dwelling among His people through the One who is Himself the mercy seat.

The Strengthened Covenant

Even more significant than the phrase “one week” is the verb that governs the clause. Daniel 9:27 states that “he shall confirm the covenant with many.” The Hebrew verb used here is וְהִגְבִּיר (vehegbīr)—derived from gābar, meaning “to make strong,” “to cause to prevail,” or “to strengthen.” It does not ordinarily describe the initiation of a brand-new covenant, nor the signing of a political treaty. Rather, it conveys the idea of reinforcing, upholding, or causing something already established to prevail. This is critical.

The text does not say the “he” makes a new covenant. It says he makes strong the covenant. The definite structure implies continuity, not innovation. The covenant already exists in God’s redemptive plan—promised to Abraham, administered under Moses, foretold by the prophets—and in the final week it reaches its decisive confirmation.

Within the seventy-weeks framework, this makes perfect sense. The Messiah does not arrive to invent a new political arrangement; He arrives to bring the covenant promises to their fulfillment.

By His ministry and ultimately by His blood, He causes the covenant to prevail—establishing it in its intended, completed form. This reading aligns naturally with the broader testimony of Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus does not speak of drafting a treaty; He speaks of confirming covenant reality: “This is My blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28). In Hebrews, Christ is not portrayed as negotiating, but as inaugurating what had long been promised (Hebrews 8–10). Thus the force of Daniel 9:27 rests not on the duration of a supposed treaty, but on the strengthening of God’s covenant within the final week of the seventy. The grammatical structure reinforces what the timeline already demonstrates: the focus is redemptive, not political.