In 281 BC, Seleucus defeated Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium, adding Asia Minor to his empire. Look it up.
What is the Abomination of Desolation?
- Thread starter Researcher
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That's what I said. The same one that was "cut off" after 69 weeks also caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the middle of that week at the same time that He made desolate an overspreading of abominations.
Making desolate an overspreading of abominations is an action (a verb).
The abomination of desolation is a title (a noun). The 2 are definitely not the same.
First, Titus did not personally fulfill Daniel’s abomination of desolation, nor is any other AD 70 figure shown doing so. Jesus describes a specific abomination standing “in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15), and Paul likewise describes the final “man of sin” exalting himself in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:3–4). Titus destroyed the Temple; that is not the same thing as fulfilling the specific personal desecration foretold by Daniel, Jesus, and Paul.
Second, the 1,260 days belong to the final 3½-year period associated with that abomination, not simply to Gentile occupation of Jerusalem. Daniel 9:27 places the cessation of sacrifice and the abomination at the midpoint of the seventieth week. Daniel 12 connects the same crisis with “time, times, and half a time,” while Revelation gives the equivalent measures of 1,260 days, 42 months, and time, times, and half a time (Rev. 11:2–3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). Jesus then places the abomination immediately before the Great Tribulation and His visible return (Matt. 24:15–30). AD 70 did not culminate in the visible return of Christ.
Third, seventy continuous weeks cannot terminate in AD 70. The first sixty-nine weeks equal 483 prophetic years and reach Messiah. If the seventieth week followed continuously, it would end only seven years later—not roughly forty years later in AD 70. Therefore anyone insisting upon an uninterrupted seventy-week chronology cannot coherently relocate the final week, its midpoint abomination, or its 1,260-day second half to AD 70.
So AD 70 fails on all three counts: no identifiable fulfillment of the personal abomination of desolation, no matching 1,260-day terminal period, and no continuous seventy-week chronology that reaches AD 70.
The claim that Jesus personally “confirmed the covenant” for 3½ years and then the apostles continued confirming it for another 3½ years is not stated anywhere in Daniel 9.
Daniel 9:27 says:
The preterist interpretation has to insert several propositions that the verse never gives.
First, Daniel never says:
Jesus confirms the covenant for the first half of the week.
Second, Daniel never says:
the apostles take over the covenant-confirming work for the second half.
Third, Daniel never identifies any apostolic event exactly 3½ years after the crucifixion as the terminus of the seventieth week.
That entire second 3½-year period is reconstructed from outside the passage.
The text says one individual performs the action:
“he shall confirm...”
and then:
“he shall cause...”
The subject does not suddenly become “Jesus and then His apostles.”
That is an imposed interpretation, not something Daniel says.
There is an additional problem. The antecedent immediately preceding verse 27 is:
in Daniel 9:26.
The passage has just distinguished:
Messiah, who is cut off
from
the coming prince, whose people destroy the city and sanctuary.
Therefore the natural reading is that the “he” of verse 27 refers to that coming prince, not back to Messiah while silently changing agents halfway through the week.
The supposed seven-year ministry is also chronologically unsupported.
Even granting the common estimate that Christ’s public ministry lasted roughly 3½ years, Scripture nowhere teaches:
3½ years of Christ + exactly 3½ years of apostolic ministry = Daniel’s seventieth week.
That equation is simply asserted.
Acts never announces that the apostles are completing the remaining half of Daniel’s seventieth week.
Stephen’s death is sometimes made the endpoint, but Daniel never mentions Stephen, and the chronology is not securely established to the day or even necessarily to precisely 3½ years.
So the theory depends on a prophetic timetable the New Testament never actually gives.
The claim about the sacrifices is even more problematic.
Daniel says:
That describes the cessation of sacrificial activity.
But the Temple sacrifices did not literally cease when Christ died.
They continued for decades afterward.
The tearing of the veil did not shut down the Temple system.
Acts explicitly shows continued Temple activity after the resurrection.
The believers were:
And many years later Paul entered the Temple in connection with purification rites and offerings:
Historically, the Jewish sacrificial system continued until the Temple’s destruction in A.D. 70.
Therefore Christ did not literally cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease at the crucifixion.
That claim is factually wrong.
The torn veil certainly had enormous theological significance.
It signified access to God through Christ and the fulfillment of the old sacrificial order in Him.
Hebrews explains that Christ’s sacrifice supersedes the repetitive animal sacrifices:
But that is not the same statement as:
“the sacrifices ceased.”
There is a critical difference between:
the sacrifices becoming theologically obsolete
and
the sacrifices actually stopping.
The first occurred because of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.
The second did not occur at Calvary.
Daniel 9:27 says the sacrifice is caused to cease.
It does not say:
“the sacrifices will continue for another forty years but will no longer be necessary in God’s redemptive economy.”
That is an entirely different proposition.
The appeal to the torn veil therefore equivocates between two meanings.
The preterist argument begins by claiming a literal fulfillment:
“Christ literally caused sacrifice to cease when the veil was torn.”
But when history demonstrates that the sacrifices continued, it retreats to a theological fulfillment:
“They were no longer necessary.”
Those cannot both be called the literal meaning of “cause sacrifice to cease.”
The sacrifices either stopped or they did not.
They did not.
There is also a covenant problem.
Daniel 9:27 speaks of a covenant associated with one week.
But Christ’s New Covenant is not a seven-year covenant.
Jesus says:
Hebrews presents that covenant as enduring and superior, not as an agreement confirmed for seven years and then interrupted halfway through.
So if Daniel 9:27 refers to Christ’s New Covenant, why is it specifically associated with one seven-year period?
And why would the same person who confirms it then “cause sacrifice to cease” in the middle of that week?
The New Covenant is not a temporary seven-year arrangement.
That alone should make the identification highly suspect.
The reading therefore requires all of the following unsupported moves:
Christ is made the “he” of verse 27 despite the immediately preceding “prince that shall come.”
Christ supposedly confirms the covenant for only the first 3½ years even though Daniel says “for one week.”
The apostles are then inserted as substitute covenant-confirmers for the remaining 3½ years even though Daniel never mentions them.
An exact 3½-year apostolic period is assumed even though Scripture never identifies it as Daniel’s remaining half-week.
The tearing of the veil is called the literal cessation of sacrifice even though sacrifices continued for decades.
And when that literal claim fails historically, “cease” is redefined to mean “became theologically unnecessary.”
That is not what the text says.
The much more straightforward reading is that Daniel describes one coming ruler who confirms a covenant connected with the final week and then, at the midpoint of that week, actually interrupts the sacrificial system.
The Christ-plus-apostles interpretation is not derived from Daniel 9:27.
It is constructed and then imposed upon it.
You:
Take accountability for how you talk to people. The way you talk to others is disgusting.
Calling you out for your behavior isn't "nasty, disgusting". But go on, play the victim and not actually take accountability for what you say to others.
Blocked.
"The Abomination of Desolation was the Crucifixion"
I would suggest that you jettison this heresy ASAP.
The Crucifixion Was NOT “The Abomination of Desolation”
To call the crucifixion of Jesus Christ “the abomination of desolation” is not merely an unusual interpretation. It fundamentally confuses two completely opposite biblical concepts.The abomination of desolation is an act of sacrilege and desecration.
The sacrifice of Christ is holy, spotless, acceptable to God, and the very basis of our redemption.
Those cannot be identified with one another.
1. Jesus Himself Places the Abomination in the Future
Jesus said:Jesus spoke these words before His crucifixion.
He did not say:
“You are about to see Me become the abomination.”
He instructed His disciples concerning an identifiable event involving the holy place, after which those in Judea were to flee:
The grammatical sequence is straightforward:
You shall see → the abomination → standing in the holy place → then flee.
The abomination is therefore associated with profane intrusion into a sacred place, exactly as Daniel describes it.
Christ's crucifixion occurred at Golgotha, outside the Temple sanctuary. Jesus was not “standing in the holy place” committing sacrilege.
2. Daniel Defines the Abomination as Temple Desecration
Daniel had already established the meaning:Notice the sequence:
Sanctuary polluted → sacrifice removed → abomination installed.
That is desecration.
Daniel 12:11 repeats the same structure:
The expression describes something set up or placed in connection with a desecrated sanctuary.
That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
3. The Crucifixion Is the Exact OPPOSITE of an Abomination
Scripture describes Christ as:Christ:
And:
Read that carefully.
The sacrifice of Christ was a:
“sweet-smelling savour” to God.
An abomination is something detestable to God.
These are theological opposites.
Christ's sacrifice cannot simultaneously be God's perfect, spotless, sweet-smelling offering and the detestable “abomination” Daniel condemns.
4. The Wickedness Was Man's Murder of Christ—not Christ's Sacrifice
Certainly, the human rejection and murder of the Messiah was an enormous sin.Peter says:
But Scripture simultaneously teaches that Christ voluntarily offered Himself according to God's redemptive purpose.
Therefore we must distinguish:
Man's act: wicked murder.
Christ's act: voluntary self-sacrifice.
God's purpose: redemption.
Calling the sacrifice itself an “abomination” grotesquely confuses the wickedness of Christ's executioners with the holiness of the Lamb who offered Himself.
5. The Torn Veil Does NOT Mean Christ “Abolished Sacrifice” in Daniel 9:27
The argument sometimes continues:“Christ caused sacrifice and offering to cease when the Temple veil was torn.”
But that is demonstrably false historically.
The sacrifices did not cease when Jesus died.
The Temple continued functioning for approximately another forty years, until A.D. 70.
Indeed Acts depicts Jewish believers still interacting with the Temple system long after the resurrection (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:26).
The torn veil signified that Christ's death opened access to God:
Hebrews explains the theological significance of Christ's sacrifice.
It does not identify the torn veil as Daniel's “abomination of desolation.”
Nor does it say that the daily Temple sacrifice literally ceased at Calvary.
6. Daniel 9 Does Not Say Messiah Confirms a Seven-Year Covenant
Daniel 9:26 says:Then the text introduces another entity:
Then verse 27 says:
The natural antecedent in the immediately preceding clause is the coming prince, not Messiah who has already been described as “cut off.”
Moreover, nowhere do the Gospels say:
Jesus made a seven-year covenant.
Nowhere do they say:
Jesus ministered for exactly three and one-half years in fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week.
And nowhere do Acts or the Epistles say:
The apostles completed the remaining three and one-half years of Jesus' covenant.
That entire construction must be imported into Daniel.
7. The Apostles Never Preach a “Remaining 3½-Year Ministry”
This is fatal to the theory.If Daniel's seventieth week supposedly consisted of:
3½ years of Christ + 3½ years of apostolic preaching,
then where does the New Testament teach this?
Nowhere.
Acts never announces:
“The remaining half of Daniel's seventieth week has begun.”
It never identifies a terminating event 3½ years later.
Stephen's martyrdom is sometimes arbitrarily chosen, but Scripture never dates Stephen's death as exactly 3½ years after Calvary, nor does it connect Stephen with Daniel 9.
This alleged prophetic chronology exists only because the interpretation requires it.
8. Paul Describes a Future Temple Profanation
Paul's description is remarkably consistent with Daniel and Jesus:Here again we find:
a wicked individual + the Temple + sacrilegious self-exaltation.
That is precisely the conceptual world of Daniel's abomination.
It is the opposite of the humble Lamb of God laying down His life for sinners.
9. Christ's Sacrifice Is the Remedy for Abomination—not the Abomination
The central theological error should therefore be stated plainly.Jesus Christ is:
the spotless Lamb
(1 Peter 1:19),
who offered Himself:
“without spot to God”
(Hebrews 9:14),
through:
“one sacrifice for sins for ever”
(Hebrews 10:12),
which God received as:
“a sweetsmelling savour”
(Ephesians 5:2).
Daniel's abomination, by contrast, is associated with:
pollution, desecration, sacrilege, removal of worship, and desolation.
To identify those two things is to invert the biblical categories.
The cross is not the abomination of desolation.
The cross is the holy sacrifice of the Son of God that saves sinners from their abominations.
And Jesus Himself directs His readers back to Daniel for the identity of the abomination:
Indeed.
Read Daniel.
The Messiah is the One who is cut off.
The abomination is the desecrating outrage connected with the sanctuary.
They are not the same thing.
Projecting confidence in no way equates to being correct, in fact most often than not, it is the opposite.
I will just trust the words of Christ Jesus, know He does not lie and accept His words were spoken to the people in front of Him so the message was for them, the first real martyrs for the faith not people 2000+ years into the future.
@Researcher said: "The Abomination of Desolation was the Crucifixion"
Would you care to comment and either confirm or deny this assertion made by @Researcher ?
The Abomination of Desolation has happened a few times and why God referred back to Daniel to the audience listening because they were well aware of that information.
The temple was destroyed (and taken over by armies) quite a few times. And then rebuilt, then destroyed again.
Nowadays the Dome of the Rock sits where the temple used to be, and it's a shrine to Islam. So it's already been taken over. The anti-christ was Muhammed. He took the books of the Bible, Old and New Testment, and made his own alternative version, the Koran.
I think it's obvious to anyone who lives/sees Jerusalem today. It's so obvious, that I can't believe people cannot see this.
The crusades were wars over Jerusalem over who could control the 'holy city'. Now it's divided into four parts and you have the Jewish quarter, the Muslim quarter, the Christian quarter, and the little known Armenian Quarter.
Nowadays the Dome of the Rock sits where the temple used to be, and it's a shrine to Islam. So it's already been taken over. The anti-christ was Muhammed. He took the books of the Bible, Old and New Testment, and made his own alternative version, the Koran.
I think it's obvious to anyone who lives/sees Jerusalem today. It's so obvious, that I can't believe people cannot see this.
The crusades were wars over Jerusalem over who could control the 'holy city'. Now it's divided into four parts and you have the Jewish quarter, the Muslim quarter, the Christian quarter, and the little known Armenian Quarter.
"Nowadays the Dome of the Rock sits where the temple used to be"
No, this is a myth that for some reason still circulates in the Church today.
The so-called Temple Mount is NOT the true location of the original Solomonic Temple, rather it is CLEARLY the 35 acre Antonia Fortress garrison grounds.
The TRUE location of the Temple is in the City of David, right now this is Israeli territory.....
False.
The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel and reaffirmed by Jesus is yet future.
And the coming desolator is the climactic enemy of God and Israel—the greater Antiochus, the greater Goliath, the greater Haman, the greater Absalom, and the greater Judas.
He is the final Satan-energized man of lawlessness, the supreme counterfeit ruler, the one who exalts himself against God and desecrates the holy place.
He is the man of sin / man of lawlessness, the son of perdition (2 Thess. 2:3–4), the Beast of Revelation 13, and the ruler commonly known as the Antichrist.
Daniel foretells his desecration of the sanctuary (Dan. 9:27; 11:36–37; 12:11), and Jesus deliberately places that Abomination in relation to a still-future crisis: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place…” (Matt. 24:15).
Thus Antiochus IV was an extraordinary historical prototype, but not the exhaustive fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy. The final desolator will reproduce Antiochus’s sacrilege on a vastly greater scale during Daniel’s climactic seventieth week.
He is Christ’s satanic counterfeit and adversary—the final ruler who opposes God, profanes the sanctuary, persecutes the saints, and is personally destroyed by the returning Messiah (2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:19–20).
Oh and BTW, you might note the fact that this Satan-man counterfeit PRECEDES the God-man Jesus Christ.
And the WHOLE WORLD will be thrust into a situation where they will make a CHOICE between the two.
I agree. Daniel 9 doesn't say that the Messiah is Jesus but we know that he is the one. Simple Logic.
Here is how I break it down.
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah [Jesus] will be cut off and have nothing, [Crucifixion] and the people [Romans] of the prince [Titus] who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; [Surrounding Armies breach the walls] even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant [New Covenant] with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; [Rendering them unnecessary] and on the wing of abominations [The Stoning of Stephen] will come one who makes desolate, [John or Simon] even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
Jesus was the Messiah, cut off and left with nothing. His ministry began at the opening of week 70 and lasted until the middle of the week when he was crucified. After the Ascension, the Apostles continued to establish the New Covenant in Jerusalem until Stephen's stoning. This marked the end of the 70 weeks. After that, the gospel went to the Gentiles.
Brother Roger, good to see you today
If I may, I appreciate the clarity of your outline, but Daniel 9:26–27 simply doesn’t give us enough textual anchors to support all the connections you’re making. The passage does point to a “Messiah” being cut off, and Christians rightly see Jesus there,
But when Daniel shifts to “the people of the prince who is to come,” the grammar ties the prince to the destroyers of the city, not to the Messiah.
That’s why most interpreters — ancient and modern — keep the covenant‑maker and the desolator as the same figure in verse 27.
Daniel never identifies that covenant as the New Covenant, never divides the seventieth week into “Jesus’ ministry + apostolic ministry,” and never connects “abominations” to Stephen’s stoning.
Your reading is thoughtful, but it requires assigning meanings Daniel doesn’t explicitly give:
“stop sacrifice” becomes “render unnecessary,”
“abominations” becomes a first‑century event, and
“one who makes desolate” becomes a later Jewish leader.
I'm not trying to upset anyone, just sharing knowledge, and I'm always open to discussing my assertions.
But when Daniel shifts to “the people of the prince who is to come,” the grammar ties the prince to the destroyers of the city, not to the Messiah.Brother Roger, good to see you today
The passage does point to a “Messiah” being cut off, and Christians rightly see Jesus there,
But when Daniel shifts to “the people of the prince who is to come,” the grammar ties the prince to the destroyers of the city, not to the Messiah.
That’s why most interpreters — ancient and modern — keep the covenant‑maker and the desolator as the same figure in verse 27.
Daniel never identifies that covenant as the New Covenant, never divides the seventieth week into “Jesus’ ministry + apostolic ministry,” and never connects “abominations” to Stephen’s stoning.
Your reading is thoughtful, but it requires assigning meanings Daniel doesn’t explicitly give:
“stop sacrifice” becomes “render unnecessary,”
“abominations” becomes a first‑century event, and
“one who makes desolate” becomes a later Jewish leader.
I'm not trying to upset anyone, just sharing knowledge, and I'm always open to discussing my assertions.
I agree. As I clearly indicate, the prince is Titus, and the people of the prince are the Romans.
Daniel never identifies that covenant as the New Covenant, never divides the seventieth week into “Jesus’ ministry + apostolic ministry,” and never connects “abominations” to Stephen’s stoning.
Your reading is thoughtful, but it requires assigning meanings Daniel doesn’t explicitly give:
I'm surprised you raise this as an objection because we all know that Daniel is giving prophecy in symbolic form, not history. I haven't done anything different than others have done. To expect Daniel to tell us what the symbology means A. Defeats the purpose of prophecy, and B, is highly irregular. Prophets hardly ever if at all, assign meanings to the symbols.
“abominations” becomes a first‑century event
Most English versions render the phrase as though Daniel were describing a location (“on the wing of the temple”) or a new event (“he will set up abominations”). But the Hebrew construction is idiomatic, not architectural.
A more accurate sense would be:
This captures the Hebrew metaphor:Israel’s covenant violations have reached the boundary beyond which God will not allow them to continue.
Daniel isn’t saying the abominations occur in a short burst. He’s describing the wing—the boundary—of abominations that have been accumulating. In Hebrew, kanaf refers to the extremity of a thing, its outer edge. The sense is: “when the abominations have reached their limit.” When Israel’s covenant violations finally reach the point beyond which God will not allow them to continue, the decreed judgment arrives.
You’re right that prophetic literature uses symbolic imagery, but symbolism does not give us license to reassign subjects or override grammar, and that’s the issue here. Daniel can speak symbolically without ever dissolving the syntactical structure of his sentences — the “he” who confirms the covenant is the same “he” who stops sacrifice, and the “people of the prince who is to come” ties the prince to the destroyers, not to Messiah. Symbolism explains what the actions mean, not who performs them. When you say “Daniel doesn’t identify the covenant as the New Covenant because prophecy is symbolic,” you’re shifting categories: symbolism can veil events, but it does not veil agents, and Daniel never symbolically redefines the covenant‑maker as Messiah or the desolator as a first‑century Jewish leader. Prophets often leave symbols unexplained, but they do not leave subjects ambiguous — the grammar anchors the referents even when the imagery is opaque.
You’re right that kānāf can mean “edge,” “extremity,” or “boundary,” and you’re right that prophetic language often uses metaphor rather than architectural precision — but that doesn’t actually solve the problem I raised.
Even if we grant your reading (“when the abominations have reached their limit”), Daniel still isn’t talking about first‑century events; he’s talking about the abominations committed by the covenant people that lead to the desolator’s arrival.
In other words, your interpretation changes what the phrase means, but it doesn’t change who performs the action or when the action occurs.
The grammar still ties the desolating act to the same subject who confirms the covenant and stops sacrifice, and it still ties the “abominations” to the covenant community’s accumulated violations, not to Stephen’s stoning or any specific NT moment.
Symbolism can broaden meaning, but it cannot transfer agency or shift chronology.
Daniel’s idiom may describe the extremity of Israel’s rebellion, but it does not identify that extremity with a first‑century martyrdom, nor does it relocate the desolator into the apostolic era.
Agreed. I didn't say otherwise.
Agreed. Where is our difference?
Daniel 9 makes the covenant in view unmistakable. In verse 4, Daniel explicitly prays to God about the covenant He made with Israel—the Sinai covenant. That sets the frame for the entire chapter. So when verse 27 says, “He will make a firm covenant,” the Hebrew more naturally means “He will strengthen the covenant,” referring back to the covenant Daniel has just mentioned in 9:4. The subject is not a new covenant with a future political figure; it is the strengthening of Israel’s covenant.
How does Jesus strengthen that covenant? The author of Hebrews explains that the New Covenant does not abolish God’s promises to Israel but fulfills and transforms them in the very way Jeremiah predicted. Jeremiah said the New Covenant would replace the Old by moving the law from stone tablets to the human heart. In that sense, the covenant is “strengthened”: what was once an outward, external expression of covenant loyalty becomes an inward, Spirit‑empowered reality. The covenant reaches its intended fullness—not by discarding Israel’s covenant, but by bringing it to its promised, internalized form.
Daniel 9:27 isn’t introducing a new covenant; it’s pointing back to the covenant Daniel mentions in 9:4. The Hebrew means “He will strengthen the covenant,” not “make a new one.” Jesus strengthens that covenant in the way Jeremiah foresaw: the New Covenant replaces the Old by internalizing it—moving the law from external commands to an inward, Spirit‑written reality. The covenant is strengthened because it reaches its intended depth.
Daniel regularly veils both events and agents behind symbolic titles, and those agents are recognized by the historical patterns that match the prophecy. In Daniel 9, the covenant context, the sequence of events, and the covenant‑judgment language all align with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The parallels are too precise to dismiss: the city destroyed, the sanctuary desolated, sacrifice ended, war decreed, and judgment poured out when Israel’s abominations reached their limit. Symbolism doesn’t hide the agent—it reveals him through the historical footprint. And the footprint of AD 70 fits Daniel 9 exactly.
The grammar of Daniel 9 does not require a single agent to perform all the actions, and Daniel’s symbolic style routinely shifts agents within a prophetic sequence. The objection misunderstands both Hebrew syntax and Daniel’s literary method. Daniel veils agents behind symbolic titles, and those agents are identified by the historical patterns that match the prophecy. The covenant context, the sequence of events, and the covenant‑judgment language all align with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The parallels are too precise to dismiss. Symbolism doesn’t prevent agency shifts—it reveals the agent through the historical footprint, and AD 70 fits that footprint exactly.
In Daniel 9:27 the identity of “he” is not determined by grammar alone but by the flow of Daniel’s argument. Hebrew prophetic syntax regularly shifts subjects as the narrative moves forward, and Daniel does this throughout his visions. So the question is not, “What does the nearest noun require?” but, “Which figure does Daniel’s covenant‑focused context naturally resume?” In verse 26, the Messiah is the primary subject, followed by an intervening clause about the people who destroy the city. Nothing in the grammar demands that the destructive people supply the subject of the next verse. Instead, Daniel’s prayer about Israel’s covenant in 9:4, his focus on the Messiah’s cutting off in 9:26, and the covenant‑restoration theme of the seventy weeks all point back to the Messiah as the one who strengthens the covenant. In other words, the identification of “he” is context‑driven: Daniel resumes his main covenant figure, not the incidental actors of the destruction. The grammar allows this shift, and the context requires it.
I appreciate the clarity of your argument, but Daniel 9:4 does not establish the Sinai covenant as the referent of the covenant in 9:27, and the Hebrew of higbîr berît (“he will make strong/confirm a covenant”) does not mean “strengthen the existing covenant” unless the context explicitly identifies the covenant being strengthened. Daniel’s prayer in 9:4 is retrospective — he is confessing Israel’s violation of the Mosaic covenant — but the angel’s prophecy in 9:24–27 is prospective, describing future events, future actors, and a future covenant action. The shift from Daniel’s prayer to Gabriel’s prophecy breaks the referential chain; the covenant Daniel mentions is not the covenant Gabriel describes. And the grammar reinforces this: the subject of higbîr is the same subject who “causes sacrifice to cease” and who is associated with “abominations” and “desolation.” That cannot be Jesus, because Jesus does not cause the sacrificial system to cease in history (it continues until AD 70), nor is He ever associated with “abominations” or “desolation.” Your appeal to Jeremiah’s New Covenant is theologically beautiful but exegetically mismatched: Jeremiah’s New Covenant replaces the Sinai covenant, not “strengthens” it, and Hebrews explicitly says the Old Covenant is “obsolete and vanishing away,” not “strengthened.” So the logic you’re proposing — Sinai covenant → strengthened by Jesus → internalized by the Spirit — is good theology, but it is not what Daniel 9:27 is describing. The covenant in 9:27 is not identified, not tied to 9:4, and not connected to Messiah’s ministry; it is tied grammatically to the coming prince of 9:26.
but that still doesn’t solve the core textual problem: symbolism can veil events, but it cannot override the subject‑chain Daniel himself establishes. Daniel absolutely uses symbolic titles (little horn, king of fierce countenance, ram, goat), but he never uses symbolism to transfer agency from one subject to another within the same sentence. In Daniel 9:26–27, the “people of the prince who is to come” destroy the city; that prince is the referent of the next verse’s “he”; that same he confirms a covenant; that same he stops sacrifice; that same he is associated with abominations and desolation. Symbolism can make the nature of the covenant action opaque, but it cannot make the actor ambiguous. Your AD 70 footprint argument is thoughtful, but it’s backwards: you’re letting history determine the agent, then reading that agent back into the text, even though the grammar ties the agent to the destroyers, not to Messiah. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fits Daniel 9:26 perfectly — but Daniel never says the covenant‑maker is Messiah, never says the desolator is a first‑century Jewish leader, and never symbolically reassigns the subject. The footprint matches the event, not the agent.
that argument still runs into a hard textual wall: Hebrew prophetic symbolism can veil events, but it does not veil or reassign the grammatical subject inside a tightly linked verbal chain. Daniel absolutely shifts agents in long symbolic visions (the ram, the goat, the little horn), but he never shifts agents mid‑sentence or mid‑clause without introducing a new subject. In 9:26–27, the chain is syntactically unbroken: the “people of the prince who is to come” destroy the city; that prince is the antecedent of the next verse’s “he”; that same he confirms a covenant; that same he stops sacrifice; that same he is associated with abominations and desolation. Your claim that “the Messiah is the primary subject of v. 26” is not supported by the grammar — the Messiah is the subject of the first clause (“Messiah shall be cut off”), but the next clause introduces a new subject, “the people of the prince who is to come,” and Hebrew does not allow you to skip that subject and resume Messiah without a re‑introduction. Daniel’s prayer in 9:4 does not control Gabriel’s prophecy; the covenant Daniel mentions is retrospective, the covenant in 9:27 is prospective, and nothing in the text identifies them as the same. Your AD 70 footprint is real — the destruction fits 9:26 perfectly — but the footprint matches the event, not the agent, because Daniel’s grammar ties the covenant‑maker, the sacrificestopper, and the desolator to the coming prince, not to Messiah.