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

[JustThinking]

Daniel was sealed because the time of the end had not come - but Revelation was not sealed because the time of the end had come

Here is a copy of the brief narrative on 12:4 in my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26):

Daniel 12:4

4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel will now be given one final instruction from Gabriel: “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.” These are the last prophetic words Daniel will receive. The command to “seal the book” does not mean that these visions are to remain secret or incomprehensible until the last days. Rather, it signifies God’s stamp of completion and authority—His seal upon the words He has spoken. Nothing is to be added, nothing taken away, until the end of time. With this seal, what is recorded in heaven concerning God’s plan of salvation is now also sealed on earth. Daniel’s mission as a prophet is complete, and Satan is powerless to alter or prevent what has been written. The prophecy stands, unshakable, until the day its final lines are fulfilled.

Yet Gabriel’s words also carry a forward-looking truth. Before the end arrives, there will be a renewed hunger for God’s Word. Many will search the Scriptures with fresh urgency, seeking to understand the prophecies concerning the last days. This will not be a casual curiosity but a deep, Spirit-driven pursuit of truth—one that rejects the distortions of the little horn and strips away the counterfeit gospels that have long obscured God’s covenant message. Jesus confirmed the unshakable nature of this promise:

“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things are accomplished. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:34–35).​

The seal on Daniel’s book is not a lock to keep people out—it is a divine guarantee that every word will endure, untouched and uncorrupted, until the moment of their fulfillment. In the end, those who search for truth will find it in the very words God has preserved for them from the beginning.

 

[Beekeeper]

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.

So to summarize:
"He" in v.27 refers to the Messiah.
Jesus "confirms the covenant" by fulfilling the law and prophesies.
Jesus causes the sacrifice to cease by being the final sacrifice.

This must be one of the easiest prophesies in the OT to understand, because a timeline is given.
All the goals set in v.24 to be accomplished within that timeline are accomplished by Jesus.

 

[JustThinking]

The 2300 year prophecy also started in 457 BC. It ended in October 1844. The problem they made with the prophecy, is they thought the sanctuary was the Earth but it was the sanctuary in heaven. It’s when Jesus moved from the holy place into the most holy place and the books were open. He started judgment. It says a revelations that all the dead will be judged first, and then they’re living.

Here is part of the narrative found within my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) speaking to the 2300 days prophecy:

Part 1 of 2

In verses 13–14, Daniel is allowed to overhear a brief but extraordinary exchange between two heavenly beings. One is the “Certain One” (often understood as the Lord Himself), and the other is Gabriel, who asks a direct, weighty question:

“How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?”​

At first glance, it sounds like a simple “How long?” But—as in verses 11–12—these words bring together more than one actor and more than one time period. In 11–12 we saw this clearly: part of the interpretation described the Messiah’s work in the final week of the seventy-weeks-of-years prophecy, and part described the later activity of the little horn. Verses 13–14 follow the same pattern and need the same careful attention.

Gabriel is asking about the length of the chazon—the broad, sweeping vision that began back in 8:1–2 and runs all the way to “the time of the end.” His question gathers up four elements: the daily sacrifices, the transgression of desolation, the trampling of the sanctuary, and the trampling of the host. These do not all belong to the same moment in history.

The daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation point us into the final “week” of the seventy-weeks-of-years prophecy—the time of the Messiah’s ministry and crucifixion.

The daily is brought to an end not by force, but by fulfillment: Christ’s once-for-all offering of Himself brings the entire sacrificial system to its true completion. The “transgression of desolation” refers to the climactic act of rejection—when the Holy One is delivered up and crucified by His own people. That act, though carried out by earthly authorities, becomes the moral turning point of the covenant. It is the desolating transgression that reveals the depth of human rebellion even as it accomplishes divine redemption.

The trampling of the sanctuary and the trampling of the host belong later, in the long post-cross period tied to the rise of the little horn. This corrupt, self-exalting power casts truth to the ground, distorts the meaning of Christ’s finished work, and brings prolonged spiritual oppression both to God’s people and to His sanctuary. So in verse 13 the question is explicitly about the chazon—the long-range panorama of kingdoms, conflicts, and rebellion that stretches to the time of the end. But before Gabriel receives an answer to that broad “How long?”, something striking happens in verse 14: God Himself steps in and answers Daniel directly. It is as if the Lord says:

Daniel, the rise and fall of empires matters—but what matters most is the moment when I step into history Myself. The heart of this whole vision is the appearance of the Messiah and the cleansing He will accomplish. I want you to know when that will happen.​

So the Lord answers—not Gabriel, but Daniel:

“For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”​

Here the focus narrows from the vast chazon to the inner core: the mareh vision, the appearance-centered vision of the Messiah and His redemptive work. The 2,300 evenings and mornings are not a vague symbol; they are the time measure God gives for this central work to reach its goal: the cleansing of the sanctuary. Just as verses 11–12 required us to separate two actors and two time periods within one explanation, verses 13–14 ask us to do the same—but now with the added weight of a specific time prophecy. The 2,300-days prophecy sits at the very heart of the chapter: it ties the Messiah’s once-for-all sacrifice to the cleansing of the sanctuary and anchors that saving work on a precise, God-appointed timeline.

Evenings and Mornings – Creation, Daily Sacrifices, and the Cross

The phrase “evenings and mornings” is precise and deeply symbolic. First, it echoes Genesis, where each day is marked by “evening and morning.” That pattern signals God’s order, intentionality, and completeness in creation. Second, it recalls the daily rhythm of the morning and evening offerings in the earthly sanctuary. In the Temple, the continual sacrifice framed each day before God and represented an ongoing covenant relationship between Him and His people.

That language is not accidental. The Messiah’s suffering and death occur within that same sanctuary-shaped framework of time. The Gospels mark His crucifixion and death with specific hours, and the shadow of the daily offerings stands behind the scene. The “evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 therefore do more than measure a span of days—they point to the entire daily system that foreshadowed Christ and reaches its completion in Him.

By using this phrase, God ties together the redemptive arc. In creation, “evening and morning” marked each completed day. In the sanctuary, the daily offerings marked each day of covenant life. At the cross, the true Lamb of God fulfilled what those offerings could only symbolize. Once His sacrifice is offered and accepted, the earthly daily no longer carries a divine role. The system it sustained is brought to its God-intended conclusion, and the focus shifts from the earthly pattern to the reality—the heavenly sanctuary and the cleansing work that follows.

This is why Daniel’s vision becomes so remarkable at this point. The mareh is not showing us merely a distant ritual in an earthly building, but the Messiah’s own work at the center of redemption—work that fulfills the sacrificial system and anchors the sanctuary message in heaven itself. And just as God once gave Moses the Ten Words as a foundation within the larger Torah, and the Torah is found within the Tanakh, so here He gives Daniel the time-marker tied to the Messiah’s appearance and offering as a foundation within the broader vision. The mareh belongs within the final week of the seventy-weeks-of-years prophecy, and that seventy-week block belongs within the larger chazon. The Messiah’s sacrifice is therefore not a side-note in the prophecy—it is its beating heart, the turning point around which both the mareh and the larger chazon must be understood.

Interpretive Paths for the 2,300 Evenings and Mornings

The 2,300 evenings and mornings has been read in more than one way. Many interpreters apply a year-for-a-day principle and treat it as 2,300 years, often anchored to 457 BC alongside the seventy weeks. Others take “evenings and mornings” as related to the daily offerings and therefore understand the period as 1,150 days. The range of views shows how much debate this text has generated.

In this chapter, however, the phrase “evenings and mornings” is bound tightly to sanctuary language—especially the daily—and to the Messiah’s fulfillment of what the daily system foreshadowed. For that reason, I understand the number in Daniel 8:14 as a literal span of 2,300 days is tied to the mareh (the appearance-focused portion of the vision), not as a measure for the entire chazon horizon. In this reading, the 2,300 evenings and mornings:

Belong to the mareh vision rather than measuring the full chazon.​

​

Fall within the Messiah-centered portion of the seventy-weeks framework, which Daniel 9 will clarify.​

​

Mark the sanctuary turning point: the Messiah’s offering, its acceptance in heaven, and the decisive end of the daily system’s covenant function.​

Through His death as the true Passover Lamb, the Messiah completes the purpose of the daily sacrifices. The earthly pattern is “cast down” in the sense that its role is fulfilled. And as He rises and ascends, the focus of atonement shifts from the pattern to the reality—the heavenly sanctuary—where His priestly work is established and the sanctuary message reaches its true intent.

 

[JustThinking]

The 2300 year prophecy also started in 457 BC. It ended in October 1844. The problem they made with the prophecy, is they thought the sanctuary was the Earth but it was the sanctuary in heaven. It’s when Jesus moved from the holy place into the most holy place and the books were open. He started judgment. It says a revelations that all the dead will be judged first, and then they’re living.

Part 2 of 2


The Mareh Calculation – theFrom Seventy Weeks and the to 2,300 Days

Within the broader chazon vision, Daniel 9 supplies a concrete time framework: the seventy weeks of years. That structure is what allows us to locate the 2,300 “evenings and mornings” within history. The first sixty-nine weeks (483 years) describe the long restoration of Jerusalem and the sanctuary system after Babylon—every element of worship gradually re-established in the reverse order of its removal.

One sacred element, however, never returns: the Ark of the Covenant. Taken out first by Jeremiah and never restored, its absence is intentional. The Ark’s meaning—God’s throne, His presence, His law—will be restored not as a gold covered wooden box, but in the Messiah Himself during the final, seventieth week. That last week (7 years × 360 days) contains 2,520 days. Therefore, Jesus’ public ministry begins on day 1 of that final week at His baptism in the Jordan. God arranges the events of that week so that His ministry spans four Passovers, and fulfilling the Spring festivals (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First fruits, and Pentecost). The first Passover falls exactly six months after His baptism, and by that same pattern the seventh Passover of the week would occur exactly six months before the end of the final seven years. From His baptism to that seventh Passover is therefore 6½ years:

6.5 × 360 = 2,340 days.​

Jesus is “cut off in the midst of the week” (Daniel 9:26–27), but His atonement stretches across the entire week, fulfilling everything that week represents. He does not need to live through every calendar day of it to bring the whole period to its intended meaning. His sacrifice reaches backward and forward within that final week and completes its purpose. Now comes the final step factor in this calculation: the forty days.

Throughout Scripture, the number forty often marks a period of preparation, purification, or proving. Immediately after His baptism, Jesus goes into the wilderness and fasts for forty days. Though sinless, He willingly enters the pattern of Levitical consecration and human testing. Those forty days:

Consecrate Him as the true High Priest, the living Temple, and the Passover Lamb of God,​

​

Confirm His purity, and,​

​

Mark the formal beginning of His redemptive ministry.​

If we start counting at the beginning of that wilderness consecration and run forward to the seventh Passover, you move through the full span of 2,340 days. But when you subtract those forty days of consecration, you arrive at 2,300 days: 2,340 − 40 = 2,300.

In this framework, that is not a numerical trick but a deliberate stamp of divine precision:

The 2,300 evenings and mornings begin with His wilderness consecration,​

​

And they culminate in the full completion and acceptance of His sacrifice—when the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed and the “daily” system is spiritually finished.​

Within that final prophetic week, every condition the Father set for the Son is perfectly met. Though He is cut off in the midst of the week, nothing in the Father’s plan is left unfinished. Just before He yields His spirit on the cross, Jesus declares, “It is finished.” At that moment, the mareh vision—the appearance-centered vision of the Messiah—was fulfilled. The sanctuary is cleansed in the only way that ever truly mattered. And the 2,300 evenings and mornings, instead of being a prophecy to frighten readers or push everything into a distant future, become a testimony to treasure: God’s plan was exact. God’s timing was complete. And in Christ, it was finished.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

This is an unfounded theory of yours, that " Because both are grammatically indefinite, the text does not use grammar to signal they are different people.” You are assuming you are tight that they are different people, and then assuming that the author was not using grammar (rendering both anarthrous) to signal they are different people. If I wrote, "A dog wiil be patrolling the property after 8 pm," and "A dog will go with me to the vet after breakfast tomorrow,” it would be ridiculous to argue that “Because both are grammatically anarthrous, the text does not use grammar to signal they are different dogs, and is I had wanted to strictly show that the second *dog* was a completely different, newly introduced dog, I would not simply repeat the exact same bare noun.” If I had wanted to show that the second “dog" was referring to the same dog, I would have used grammar to indicate it by saying. The dog will go with me to the vet after breakfast tomorrow.”

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.

Ha-Bo” is an absolute participle that completes the construct chain, and it has the definite article Ha-.
a people - of a prince - the coming one, making the whole chain definite: the people of the prince the coming one, or the people of the coming prince.

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.

No. Ha-Bo’ makes the entire chain definite. “The people/tribe of the coming prince"

## 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.
>

ShaaKhaTh is not used in the Qal, but it is used in the Piel (ShiKheTh) which is an intensive form of the Qal. If someone is directly destroying something, the Piel will express that. If someone is causing a place to be destroyed, perhaps a king commanding his army to go and destroy a town, or David unintentionally causing 70,000 Israelites to be destroyed by a plague by a destroying angel, because he had numbered his troops, the Hiphil would be used. Daniel uses the Hiphil form. The Levites unintentionally cause the destruction because they were offering blasphemous sacrifices for 40 years after Jesu had paid for their sins.

 

[JustThinking]

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.

Here is part of the narrative found in my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) speaking to verse 9:24:


Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks…

Gabriel’s message to Daniel delivers one of the most remarkable timelines in all of Scripture—a countdown to the arrival of the Messiah. According to the prophecy, the Anointed One would come at the end of sixty-nine weeks of years, or 483 years, following the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This prophecy is unmistakably about the Messiah, and it unfolds with both promise and solemnity: restoration would come, but so would judgment. Just as the statue in Daniel 2 and the beasts in Daniel 7 represent continuous timelines through successive kingdoms, the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 follow an unbroken, divinely ordered sequence. They’re divided into three distinct parts:

Seven weeks (49 years) – marking the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s streets and walls from 457 BC to 408 BC.​

​

Sixty-two weeks (434 years) – a long, quiet stretch from 408 BC to 27 AD, leading straight to the Messiah.​

​

One final week (7 years) – during which the Messiah would confirm the covenant and be “cut off” in the middle of it.​

There is no gap or pause in this timeline. Daniel 9:24 makes clear that all seventy weeks are “for your people and your holy city,” binding the prophecy tightly to Israel and Jerusalem. While some interpretations suggest a pause between the 69th and 70th weeks—placing the final seven years far into the future—this breaks the consistent pattern of God’s prophetic design. Nowhere else does God interrupt His time-ordained plans with thousands of years of delay.

In verse 25b, Gabriel provides two interpretive anchors:

The first seven weeks encompass the physical restoration of Jerusalem—its walls and streets rebuilt in troubling times.​

​

The following sixty-two weeks pass without specific detail, leading seamlessly to the arrival of the Messiah in 27 AD—at the very start of the 70th week.​

Though that middle period remains silent, its silence is meaningful. It reinforces the unity of the timeline: just as the kingdoms in Daniel’s earlier visions moved without interruption, so do the seventy weeks.

The entire prophecy functions as one continuous movement toward redemption. The real focus, however, is not just on buildings or calendars—but on the restoration of God’s presence among His people. The Temple, its walls, and the Levitical system would indeed be rebuilt. But one thing was missing: the Ark of the Covenant. Hidden by Jeremiah before Babylon’s siege, the Ark was never recovered. And that was no accident. Its absence symbolized that only the Messiah could restore what was truly lost—God’s presence dwelling among His people. That restoration began when Jesus was baptized in 27 AD. As the heavens opened and the Spirit descended, God returned—not to a stone sanctuary, but in the person of His Son. The Ark had always symbolized God with His people. Now, in Christ, that reality was fulfilled. This is why the final week of the seventy must remain where it belongs: at the culmination of the 483-year countdown. To remove it from its appointed place is to break the very framework that points to Jesus and His mission. Unlike the earlier seven weeks, which focused on physical rebuilding, the final week is filled with spiritual significance and eternal consequence.

Within this final stretch:

Jesus fulfills all six objectives listed in Daniel 9:24—dealing with sin, righteousness, vision, and anointing.​

​

He brings an end to sacrifices—His death rendering the old system obsolete (Hebrews 10:10–14).​

​

He confirms the covenant—not through rituals, but through His blood, establishing a new and living way.​

​

The Temple and the city are destroyed—just as foretold, this judgment comes in 70 AD.​

​

Those who reject Him are left in spiritual desolation—cut off from the Presence until the appointed time of restoration.​

To cast this prophecy into some distant future—awaiting an antichrist or a rebuilt temple—misses the heart of Daniel 9. This isn’t a prophecy about what might happen someday. It’s a declaration of what already happened—of the Messiah who came, who suffered, and who restored everything that had been lost.

Every part of this prophecy points to Him:

The seven weeks prepared the city.​

​

The sixty-two weeks prepared the people.​

​

The final week revealed the Savior.​

And through Him, the new Temple was born—not of stone, but of Spirit. Not on earth, but from heaven. Not temporary, but eternal. The prophecy of Daniel 9 is not about delay. It’s about fulfillment. And the fulfillment is Jesus Christ.

 

[Psalm1]

• 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).

Preterist?
Not biblical.

 

[HeIsHere]

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.

Agree, there is no gap, a total fabrication and for certain the Achilles Heel of futurism.

 

[cv5]

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.

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.

Clearly this is the case.

 

[cv5]

This is an unfounded theory of yours, that " Because both are grammatically indefinite, the text does not use grammar to signal they are different people.” You are assuming you are tight that they are different people, and then assuming that the author was not using grammar (rendering both anarthrous) to signal they are different people. If I wrote, "A dog wiil be patrolling the property after 8 pm," and "A dog will go with me to the vet after breakfast tomorrow,” it would be ridiculous to argue that “Because both are grammatically anarthrous, the text does not use grammar to signal they are different dogs, and is I had wanted to strictly show that the second *dog* was a completely different, newly introduced dog, I would not simply repeat the exact same bare noun.” If I had wanted to show that the second “dog" was referring to the same dog, I would have used grammar to indicate it by saying. The dog will go with me to the vet after breakfast tomorrow.”

Ha-Bo” is an absolute participle that completes the construct chain, and it has the definite article Ha-.
a people - of a prince - the coming one, making the whole chain definite: the people of the prince the coming one, or the people of the coming prince.

No. Ha-Bo’ makes the entire chain definite. “The people/tribe of the coming prince"

ShaaKhaTh is not used in the Qal, but it is used in the Piel (ShiKheTh) which is an intensive form of the Qal. If someone is directly destroying something, the Piel will express that. If someone is causing a place to be destroyed, perhaps a king commanding his army to go and destroy a town, or David unintentionally causing 70,000 Israelites to be destroyed by a plague by a destroying angel, because he had numbered his troops, the Hiphil would be used. Daniel uses the Hiphil form. The Levites unintentionally cause the destruction because they were offering blasphemous sacrifices for 40 years after Jesu had paid for their sins.

The response “Ha-boʾ makes the entire chain definite” is grammatically too simplistic and, under normal Biblical Hebrew rules, incorrect.


The Hebrew is:

וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא
wĕhāʿîr wĕhaqqōdeš yašḥît ʿam nāgîd habbāʾ

The relevant phrase is:

עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא
ʿam nāgîd habbāʾ

1. The construct chain is עַם נָגִיד​

The natural syntactic analysis is:

עַם־נָגִיד
“people of a prince”

Here:

• עַם — “people,” construct noun
• נָגִיד — “prince/ruler,” absolute noun
• הַבָּא — “the coming one / the one who comes,” an adjectivally or relatively functioning participle

In a construct chain, definiteness is determined by the absolute noun, here נָגִיד, not by a subsequent adjective or participle. Because נָגִיד has neither the article, a pronominal suffix, nor another inherently definite marker, עַם נָגִיד is formally indefinite: “a people of a prince” or, more naturally, “the people of a prince,” where English supplies “the” from context. Standard Hebrew grammars state that the definiteness of a construct chain is determined by its final absolute noun.

2. הַבָּא is not the absolute noun completing the chain​

The proposed analysis—

“a people – of a prince – the coming one,” with הַבָּא completing the construct chain

—is mistaken because הַבָּא is not another genitival noun in the chain. It is a Qal participle from בוא, “to come,” functioning adjectivally or as an abbreviated relative expression:

“the one coming”
“who is to come”

Participles used adjectivally follow the same general syntactic behaviour as adjectives.


Thus the structure is not:

[people of [prince of the coming one]]

but:

[people of a prince] [the one coming]

or idiomatically:

“the people of a prince—the one who is coming”
“the people of a prince who is to come”

3. The article on הַבָּא does not retroactively place הַ־ on נָגִיד​

In ordinary attributive Hebrew, a definite adjective modifying a definite noun normally agrees with that noun in definiteness:

הָאִישׁ הַטּוֹב
“the good man”

An indefinite phrase normally has neither article:

אִישׁ טוֹב
“a good man”

Consequently, had Daniel wished to write the straightforward phrase “the coming prince,” the regular fully marked form would be:

הַנָּגִיד הַבָּא
hannāgîd habbāʾ

But Daniel has:

נָגִיד הַבָּא
nāgîd habbāʾ

The article is present only on the participle. That construction can give the participle a relative or identifying force—approximately, “a prince, namely the one who is coming”—but it does not make נָגִיד morphologically definite in the ordinary way. The mismatch between an articleless noun and an articulated attributive modifier is specifically recognized as noncanonical rather than the normal mechanism for definiteness agreement.

4. More precisely:​

עַם נָגִיד is morphologically an indefinite construct chain, while הַבָּא identifies or qualifies נָגִיד as “the one who is coming.”

That allows several reasonable English renderings:

• “the people of a prince who is to come”
• “the people of the coming prince”
• more mechanically, “a people of a prince, the one coming”

“The people of the coming prince” is good idiomatic English, but its English definite articles should not be used to claim that the Hebrew text contains הַנָּגִיד, because it plainly does not.

 

[cv5]

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.

If you think that we futurists commend such infantile rubbish as teaching tools, you are greatly mistaken.

Here is a lesson for you:

All those "faithing in Him" πιστεύω εἰς αὐτόν (pisteuō eis auton) are those who enter into the New Covenant ketubah contract.

Christ Jesus, having paid the settlement price in His own blood, is now obligated, by virtue of His impeccable character, to fulfill the harpazo aka the rapture.

In other words, in this present Church age ALL those who drink the cup of betrothal get "raptured".

1. The Legally Binding Nature of a Sealed Covenant
In the ancient world, a covenant (berith in Hebrew) was not a casual contract. When sealed with blood, it became an absolute, unbreakable bond of life and death. By pouring out His own blood to seal the New Covenant, Christ legally bound Himself to the terms of that agreement.
Because He cannot lie and cannot break His word, His promises cease to be mere possibilities—they become absolute certainty. In covenant theology, God "binds" Himself. Therefore, the execution of the final phase (the Harpazo or rapture) is a guaranteed legal fulfillment of the contract He initiated.

2. The Bridegroom's Return is Mandatory
Under the ancient Galilean wedding framework, once the Mohar (purchase price) was paid and the cup was drank, the groom was legally married to the bride, even though they lived apart during the preparation phase.
The groom had to return to fetch his bride. He could not simply change his mind and leave her stranded at her father's house; that would be a catastrophic violation of the marriage covenant. Christ, having paid the ultimate price, must return to claim the possession He purchased.

 

[cv5]

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

You do not realize that these four passages infallibly prove the "gap" between the 69th and 70th week? Tragic but not at all unexpected or unusual for those who think that God has abandoned "Gomer". ​

Side-by-side sequence​

Passage	Covenant blood	Period of abstention/separation	Future fulfilment
Mark 14:24–25	“blood of the new testament”	“I will drink no more”	“in the kingdom of God”
Matthew 26:28–29	“blood of the new testament”	“I will not drink henceforth”	“with you in my Father’s kingdom”
Luke 22:16–20	“new testament in my blood”	no more eating or drinking	fulfilled when the Kingdom comes
1 Corinthians 11:25–26	“new testament in my blood”	Church remembers Him	“till he come”

For the nuptial interpretation, Matthew 26:29 is particularly striking because Jesus says that He will drink it new “with you” in the Father’s Kingdom. That most clearly expresses the future reunion and celebratory banquet.

The ritual announcement is:

“Behold, the bridegroom comes; go ye out to meet him.”
— Matthew 25:6

In Hebrew it is commonly rendered:

הִנֵּה הֶחָתָן בָּא — צְאוּ לִקְרָאתוֹ
Hinnēh he-chatan ba; tze’u liqrato
“Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him.”

The crucial term is the midnight cry—Greek:

κραυγὴ γέγονεν — kraugē gegonen
“a cry/shout arose.”

In the wedding picture, a member of the groom’s party precedes him and announces his unexpected arrival. The bride and attendants then go out to meet and accompany him.


This corresponds closely to the language of the harpazō:

• Matthew 25:6: the midnight cry announces the bridegroom.
• John 14:3: “I will come again, and receive you unto myself.”
• 1 Thessalonians 4:16: the Lord descends “with a shout … and with the trump of God.”
• 1 Thessalonians 4:17: the saints are caught up—harpagēsometha—to meet the Lord.
• 1 Corinthians 15:52: the transformation occurs “at the last trump.”

The particularly strong verbal parallel is the command:

“Go ye out to meet him”

and Paul’s:

“to meet the Lord in the air.”

Both use the meeting concept—Greek apantēsis—the arrival of an important person followed by an escorting reception. Matthew 25:6 therefore supplies the wedding announcement:

“Behold, the Bridegroom!”

while 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 supplies its prophetic realization in the Church’s harpazō.

 

[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.

An utterly preposterous claim on its face.

Futurism has ALL of the right answers. And the crucifixion led to the ASCENSION and the Church Age.
Not the time of Jacobs trouble, nor the Return (IMMEDIATELY AFTER).
The crucifixion DID however fulfill these "UNTIL" statements.

So now the ball is in your court. Explain if you can these crucial UNTIL statements.

Act 1:11
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Act 3:21
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Luk 13:35
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Luk 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.

Rom 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.

 

[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.

Futurism has ALL of the right answers. And the crucifixion led to the ASCENSION and the Church Age.
Not the time of Jacobs trouble, nor the Return (IMMEDIATELY AFTER).


[Mat 24:29-31 KJV]
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[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.

Act 1:11
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Act 3:21
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Luk 13:35
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Luk 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.

Rom 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.

1. Why preterism cannot accommodate all five endpoints​

A preterist interpretation may attempt to identify AD 70 with Christ’s “coming” in judgment. But the five passages require one coordinated consummation:

• the same bodily Jesus returns as He departed;
• His heavenly session ends;
• prophetic restoration begins;
• Israel changes from rejection to national confession;
• Jerusalem’s Gentile domination ends;
• Israel’s partial blindness ends after the Gentile fullness.

AD 70 accomplished the opposite of several of these:

• Jerusalem was more thoroughly subjected to Gentile power;
• Israel entered a wider dispersion;
• the nation did not confess Jesus as Messiah;
• the promised restoration did not commence;
• Jesus did not bodily descend as the disciples had seen Him ascend.

Therefore AD 70 may fulfill the predicted destruction in Daniel 9:26 and Luke 21, but it cannot constitute the endpoint introduced by the repeated “untils.”


That distinction is devastating to preterism:

AD 70 belongs inside the interval; it does not terminate the interval.

---

2. Why historicism also fails​

Historicism spreads fulfillment through the centuries, but these passages point toward a coherent future reversal rather than a gradual allegorical fulfillment:

• Messiah is either bodily in heaven or bodily returned.
• Israel is either nationally hardened or nationally restored.
• Jerusalem is either under the Times of the Gentiles or liberated under Messiah.
• The prophetic restoration has either arrived or remains future.

Church history has produced no identifiable event in which all those conditions reversed together.


The “untils” therefore prevent the prophecies from being dissolved into an indefinite history of Rome, the papacy, the Reformation, or modern political developments.

---

Fruchtenbaum’s complete prophetic logic​

The argument can be expressed as a syllogism:

1. Daniel assigns 490 years specifically to Daniel’s people and Jerusalem.
2. Messiah is cut off after 483 years.
3. Jerusalem is destroyed after those 483 years.
4. Seven prophetic years therefore remain.
5. After Messiah’s rejection, He is received into heaven.
6. Israel becomes nationally hardened but only temporarily.
7. Jerusalem remains under Gentile domination but only temporarily.
8. Gentile salvation assumes a special prominence but only until its appointed fullness.
9. Israel must eventually repent and call for Messiah.
10. Messiah then returns bodily, ends Gentile domination, saves Israel, and inaugurates prophetic restoration.
11. The future seventieth week is the divinely appointed final process leading to that consummation.

Therefore, the gap is not an artificial blank inserted by dispensationalists. Daniel creates the chronological interval; the New Testament “untils” disclose its purpose, conditions, and endpoint.

 

[Jon777]

If you think that we futurists commend such infantile rubbish as teaching tools, you are greatly mistaken.

Here is a lesson for you:

All those "faithing in Him" πιστεύω εἰς αὐτόν (pisteuō eis auton) are those who enter into the New Covenant ketubah contract.

Christ Jesus, having paid the settlement price in His own blood, is now obligated, by virtue of His impeccable character, to fulfill the harpazo aka the rapture.

In other words, in this present Church age ALL those who drink the cup of betrothal get "raptured".

I notice that not a single verse is quoted, or a reference given. A lot of verbiage is written out, out of man’s mind, but not any basis on the scriptures.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up (ἁρπάζω harpazo) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thess 4:16-17, KJV)

The NT Greek “harpazo” is used 17 times and the KJV renders it in various words: “catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)”. So there does not seem to be a special, technical sense in the word for which the dispensationalist define as the “rapture”. I have many translations in my Bible software, and not one uses “rapture” in translating “harpazo” in 1 Thess. 4:17.

John Gill was an 18th century Baptist who taught a historic premillennial viewpoint. In his commentary he uses the term “rapture” – “shall be caught up; suddenly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with force and power; by the power of Christ, and by the ministry and means of the holy angels; and to which rapture will contribute, the agility which the bodies both of the raised and changed saints will have: and this rapture of the living saints will be together with them; with the dead in Christ, that will then be raised; so that the one will not come before the other, or the one be sooner with Christ than the other; but the one being raised and the other changed, they will be joined in one company and general assembly, and be caught up together…” *There is nothing hinting at a secret rapture or 7-year tribulation following in that commentary

Dispensationalists ignore Matt 24:34 and teach that this section is describing the great 7-year tribulation still in our future. What does John Gill the premillennialist say on this?

“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass,.... Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live
till all these things were fulfilled; see Mt 16:28 as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.”

Joseph Benson, the 18th century Methodist wrote on this:
“It is to me a wonder,” says Bishop Newton, “how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation. And it seems as if our Lord had been aware of some such misapplication of his words, by adding yet greater force and emphasis to his affirmation, Mat 24:35, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away”

You must move up to modernism starting in the 19th century to find the dispensationalist type novelty.

 

[JustThinking]

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.

​

Here is part of the narrative found in my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) that is inserted between verses 25 and 26 (they do not contradict the interpretations of @WayneNSO - hopefully):

Reflective narrative:
The Restorative and the Destructive verses
- A Prophetic Divide​

Before continuing into the next two verses—arguably among the most controversial in all of Scripture—it is vital to pause and recognize the prophetic structure God has intentionally given Daniel in chapter 9. These four verses (vv.24–27) form a unified prophecy, yet they are clearly divided into two contrasting halves. Verses 24 and 25 are restorative in tone and purpose. Verses 26 and 27 are destructive—not in opposition to the Messiah, but revealing what must be removed, judged, and overturned because of His arrival. Both halves speak of the Messiah. But they speak of Him in different roles.

In verses 24 and 25, the Messiah is the provider of restoration. He comes to fulfill the covenant, to restore righteousness, to bring back God's presence, and to mark the beginning of a new and final spiritual era. These verses are filled with hope, clarity, and divine certainty. They serve as the prophetic counterpart to the interpretation sequences we saw in Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 8—anchored in time, orderly in structure, and centered on God’s redemptive work. Here, we are told when the Messiah will come, what will be restored before His arrival, and how His appearance fulfills the deepest promises of God. But then comes a turn. Verses 26 and 27 shift the tone. They describe what will happen after the Messiah is revealed, especially among those who reject Him. These verses deal with destruction, judgment, and desolation. They reveal the consequence of rejecting the covenant the Messiah came to confirm. And tragically, it is these two verses that have suffered the greatest distortion over time.

Historically, for centuries after Daniel’s prophecy, and throughout the early Church and the Reformation, interpreters rightly understood this passage as a reference to Christ—not a future antichrist.

The Reformers correctly identified the papacy as the little horn described in Daniel 7 and 8, and as the persecuting power of Revelation 13 and 17. This view remained dominant for many generations. But in the late 1500s, a Jesuit priest named Francisco Ribera introduced a radically different interpretation. As part of the Counter-Reformation, Ribera sought to protect the papacy from Reformers' claims by proposing a futurist interpretation. According to this view, Daniel’s 70th week was not fulfilled by Christ but postponed into the distant future. Ribera asserted that the final week refers to a future antichrist who will:

Make a seven-year covenant with Israel.​

​

Break it after 3.5 years.​

​

Rebuild the Temple and reinstate sacrifices.​

​

Persecute believers during a final “tribulation.”​

This theory required inserting a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks—completely severing the prophetic flow of the seventy-week timeline. It effectively removed Christ from the final week and redirected attention away from His atoning work, placing it instead on a future antichrist figure. Though originally designed as a defensive maneuver against Protestant theology, Ribera’s theory gained traction and became widely accepted in modern dispensationalist teaching. However, this approach violates the structure God has given. The seventy weeks were declared “for your people and your holy city”—they are complete, continuous, and unbroken. The timeline is precise: it began in 457 BC and ends in 33/4 AD. The Messiah is revealed exactly on time—at the start of the final week—and fulfills the redemptive plan through His death, resurrection, and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

The seventieth week belongs to Christ, not to a mythical antichrist. So this is what Gabriel has shown Daniel so far:

457 BC marked the start of the fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle, the chazon vision, and the seventy-weeks prophecy.​

​

God would ensure the full restoration of Jerusalem—its city, its people, its Temple, its sacred vessels, and its covenant cycles—within 69 weeks (483 years).​

​

The Messiah would be the final element restored—symbolized by the Ark of the Covenant, the first item removed before the exile and the last to return.​

​

The Messiah would arrive on the first day of the final week, completing the prophecy.​

​

His role would include confirming the covenant, ending the sacrificial system, fulfilling the six divine objectives of verse 24, and ultimately facing the rejection that would result in judgment.​

Verses 24 and 25 show us the long-awaited arrival of the Messiah—the one who restores the holy things of God. Verses 26 and 27 will now reveal the cost of rejecting Him. The prophetic structure demands our attention. This is not just a passage to be decoded—it is a divine blueprint. The seventy weeks tell one complete story, in two parts: first restoration, then judgment. First the invitation, then the consequence.

It is not about a future despot.​

​

It is about the Messiah—Jesus Christ—and what He came to restore.​

With the foundation firmly laid, and the Messiah's role in the seventieth week clearly established, we now turn to the final two verses—those that shift from restoration to consequence. Here, Gabriel reveals what happens not only because the Messiah has come, but because He is rejected. The tone changes, the imagery darkens, and the prophecy moves from the hopeful fulfillment of God's plan to the sobering reality of judgment. Yet even in these verses, Christ remains at the center—both as the one who is “cut off” and the one who brings an end to the old order.

 

[cv5]

​

Here is part of the narrative found in my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) that is inserted between verses 25 and 26 (they do not contradict the interpretations of @WayneNSO - hopefully):

Reflective narrative:
The Restorative and the Destructive verses
- A Prophetic Divide​

Before continuing into the next two verses—arguably among the most controversial in all of Scripture—it is vital to pause and recognize the prophetic structure God has intentionally given Daniel in chapter 9. These four verses (vv.24–27) form a unified prophecy, yet they are clearly divided into two contrasting halves. Verses 24 and 25 are restorative in tone and purpose. Verses 26 and 27 are destructive—not in opposition to the Messiah, but revealing what must be removed, judged, and overturned because of His arrival. Both halves speak of the Messiah. But they speak of Him in different roles.

In verses 24 and 25, the Messiah is the provider of restoration. He comes to fulfill the covenant, to restore righteousness, to bring back God's presence, and to mark the beginning of a new and final spiritual era. These verses are filled with hope, clarity, and divine certainty. They serve as the prophetic counterpart to the interpretation sequences we saw in Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 8—anchored in time, orderly in structure, and centered on God’s redemptive work. Here, we are told when the Messiah will come, what will be restored before His arrival, and how His appearance fulfills the deepest promises of God. But then comes a turn. Verses 26 and 27 shift the tone. They describe what will happen after the Messiah is revealed, especially among those who reject Him. These verses deal with destruction, judgment, and desolation. They reveal the consequence of rejecting the covenant the Messiah came to confirm. And tragically, it is these two verses that have suffered the greatest distortion over time.

Historically, for centuries after Daniel’s prophecy, and throughout the early Church and the Reformation, interpreters rightly understood this passage as a reference to Christ—not a future antichrist.

The Reformers correctly identified the papacy as the little horn described in Daniel 7 and 8, and as the persecuting power of Revelation 13 and 17. This view remained dominant for many generations. But in the late 1500s, a Jesuit priest named Francisco Ribera introduced a radically different interpretation. As part of the Counter-Reformation, Ribera sought to protect the papacy from Reformers' claims by proposing a futurist interpretation. According to this view, Daniel’s 70th week was not fulfilled by Christ but postponed into the distant future. Ribera asserted that the final week refers to a future antichrist who will:

Make a seven-year covenant with Israel.​

​

Break it after 3.5 years.​

​

Rebuild the Temple and reinstate sacrifices.​

​

Persecute believers during a final “tribulation.”​

This theory required inserting a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks—completely severing the prophetic flow of the seventy-week timeline. It effectively removed Christ from the final week and redirected attention away from His atoning work, placing it instead on a future antichrist figure. Though originally designed as a defensive maneuver against Protestant theology, Ribera’s theory gained traction and became widely accepted in modern dispensationalist teaching. However, this approach violates the structure God has given. The seventy weeks were declared “for your people and your holy city”—they are complete, continuous, and unbroken. The timeline is precise: it began in 457 BC and ends in 33/4 AD. The Messiah is revealed exactly on time—at the start of the final week—and fulfills the redemptive plan through His death, resurrection, and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

The seventieth week belongs to Christ, not to a mythical antichrist. So this is what Gabriel has shown Daniel so far:

457 BC marked the start of the fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle, the chazon vision, and the seventy-weeks prophecy.​

​

God would ensure the full restoration of Jerusalem—its city, its people, its Temple, its sacred vessels, and its covenant cycles—within 69 weeks (483 years).​

​

The Messiah would be the final element restored—symbolized by the Ark of the Covenant, the first item removed before the exile and the last to return.​

​

The Messiah would arrive on the first day of the final week, completing the prophecy.​

​

His role would include confirming the covenant, ending the sacrificial system, fulfilling the six divine objectives of verse 24, and ultimately facing the rejection that would result in judgment.​

Verses 24 and 25 show us the long-awaited arrival of the Messiah—the one who restores the holy things of God. Verses 26 and 27 will now reveal the cost of rejecting Him. The prophetic structure demands our attention. This is not just a passage to be decoded—it is a divine blueprint. The seventy weeks tell one complete story, in two parts: first restoration, then judgment. First the invitation, then the consequence.

It is not about a future despot.​

​

It is about the Messiah—Jesus Christ—and what He came to restore.​

With the foundation firmly laid, and the Messiah's role in the seventieth week clearly established, we now turn to the final two verses—those that shift from restoration to consequence. Here, Gabriel reveals what happens not only because the Messiah has come, but because He is rejected. The tone changes, the imagery darkens, and the prophecy moves from the hopeful fulfillment of God's plan to the sobering reality of judgment. Yet even in these verses, Christ remains at the center—both as the one who is “cut off” and the one who brings an end to the old order.

The Reformers correctly identified the papacy as the little horn described in Daniel 7 and 8

The typical (and utterly Biblically illiterate) Reformer trope.
The Reformers attempts at exegesis were a train wreck, this because of their failure to grasp JEWISH concepts, thought, and principles.

Oh and BTW, the "little horn" is ALWAYS an individual person.

Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation directly contradicts the historicist claim that the papacy as an institution is the “little horn.” His argument is that Daniel’s little horns are presented as personal rulers, not ecclesiastical systems spanning many centuries.

Daniel 7: the little horn is an individual Antichrist​

Daniel 7:8 says:

“There came up among them another little horn… and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

The horn possesses distinctly personal characteristics:

• Eyes like the eyes of a man
• A mouth speaking
• He personally persecutes the saints
• He personally changes times and laws
• He personally rules for “a time and times and the dividing of time”
• He is personally destroyed when the Ancient of Days judges him

Daniel 7:24 explicitly interprets the horns as kings:

“And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them.”

The text does not say that the little horn is a religious office, an institution, a succession of popes, or an ecclesiastical system. It says another king shall arise.


For Fruchtenbaum, this is the future Antichrist: an individual ruler who rises from the final form of the fourth Gentile empire, subdues three rulers, persecutes the saints during the Tribulation, and is destroyed at Messiah’s return.

Daniel 8: the little horn is also an individual ruler​

Daniel 8:9 introduces another little horn:

“And out of one of them came forth a little horn…”

This horn:

• Exalts himself
• Removes the daily sacrifice
• Desecrates the sanctuary
• Casts truth to the ground
• Is ultimately broken by divine judgment

The angel’s interpretation again identifies him as an individual king:

“And in the latter time of their kingdom… a king of fierce countenance… shall stand up.”
—Daniel 8:23

Fruchtenbaum identifies the immediate historical fulfillment as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king who desecrated the Jewish Temple. Antiochus also functions typologically as a foreshadowing of the future Antichrist.


Thus:

• Daniel 7 little horn: the future Antichrist.
• Daniel 8 little horn: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, with possible typological implications for Antichrist.
• Neither horn: the papacy as a multigenerational institution.

The decisive grammatical point​

The inspired interpretation does not leave the symbol undefined:

“Another shall rise after them.”
—Daniel 7:24

“A king of fierce countenance… shall stand up.”
—Daniel 8:23

Both passages interpret the horn as a king—a personal ruler. Therefore, identifying the little horn with the papacy requires replacing Daniel’s own interpretation of the symbol with a later historicist construction.

 

[Vucesa]

Interesting the Book of Daniel was sealed but not Revelation.

Same argument could be made for the invention/use of the printing press...probably that had more profound impact on the general public, where some had little to no access to information.

That is why newspaper eschatology tends to have many problems.

The book of Daniel was sealed because the 70 weeks for example where still hundreds of years off. The book of Revelation wasn't sealed because its fulfillment began shortly after being written.

 

[HeIsHere]

The book of Daniel was sealed because the 70 weeks for example where still hundreds of years off. The book of Revelation wasn't sealed because its fulfillment began shortly after being written.

Yes that was my point.