But when Daniel wrote the prophecy the events had not taken place nor had anyone an idea when or how they would. "Messiah the Prince" was never the "prince of the people" nor could He be since He was "cut off".
Verse 26 predicts a destruction of "the city and the holy (place)" by the people of "the coming prince". The verse specifies that it is "the people of the coming prince", related in some way to "the coming prince", and not the prince himself that will destroy the city.
The “coming prince”, “he”, will "cause a covenant to prevail with the many for one seven" and at the middle of that seven "cause sacrifice and offering to cease." This person can’t be the "Messiah the Prince”, who ratified a covenant by His death.
First, he is said to "cause a covenant to prevail for one week." Jesus did ratify a covenant, but it is an eternal one.
Second, the closest antecedent to "he" is "the coming prince" and is thus the grammatical preference.
Third, the participle "coming" with the definite article refers back to someone previously mentioned or already known.
Fourth, there is something significant about the three and one half years of this seven that points back to the activities of the little horn in Daniel 7:25 who works blasphemy for "a time, and times, and the dividing of time" -- a period seemingly identical with that of this "he" during the final week.
Fifth, his activities are cited by the apostles Paul and John in reference to an end time personage. These activities "And he shall cause a covenant to prevail with the many for one seven. But (for) half of the seven he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease" indicates that this person, evidently of considerable position, will enter into an agreement with Israel ("the many," the subjects of the seventy sevens) that involves the freedom to worship in their temple and will somehow violate that agreement three and a half years later. It would be possible to speak of Christ as ending "sacrifice and oblation" in some sense, but to associate him with "the abomination of desolations" is impossible.
The breaking of this covenant is marked by the coming "upon the wing a desolating abominable idol" which will last "until the end and until that which is decreed shall be poured out upon the desolator." This act is abominable and involves idolatry. Paul refers to it in 2 Thessalonians 2:3ff and John in Revelation 13. This act of idolatry is what Jesus referred to as "the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" (Mt.24:15).
This "coming prince," is Paul's "man of lawlessness" and John's "beast from the sea" whose activities are close to the return of Jesus Christ (Mt. 24:29; 2 Thes. 2:3ff; Rev.19:11-20:3). He is the "antichrist" of 1 John 4:3. His activities will continue "even until the end, and until that which is decreed shall be poured out upon the desolator." That is, at the "end" of the final seven.
"The difficulties are inconsequential compared the leap of faith required by the futurist gap theory."
Inconsequential is in the eye of the beholder. To God, one day is as a thousand years; whether 40 years or however long.
Inconsequential is in the eye of the beholder. To God, one day is as a thousand years; whether 40 years or however long.
If that is the rule then there is no issue with anyone's interpretation, no? Why are you so concerned with a few years here or there vs. the several thousands that have been arbitrarily inserted ala the dispensationalist gap theory? Perhaps the log-in-eye syndrome is preventing clear vision.