.
>> “It is not Jesus who confirms this covenant for one week. It is another “prince” who was coming.” <<
No, you’re forcing a relationship to the text that doesn’t hold up. None of the rest of the text is that linked.
The one who makes abominations is definitely not the one who confirmed the covenant.
That argument does not offer any substance. “He” either refers to Messiah, as you assert, or the “prince” to come, as I assert. Neither of these is forced upon the passage. We arrive at the answer by comparing other passages.
Why would Messiah “confirm” the covenant of the New Testament for only seven years? That covenant is eternal:
Hebrews 13:20-21
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
In what way would He confirm it? That is, how will He confirm it then that is somehow different than now? As Paul says, God has never forsaken His people, Israel:
Romans 11:1
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
It is the context of all of the other passages that leads me to believe that the person who proclaims himself to be God (i.e. anti-Christ), is the same one who sets up the abomination of desolation. And that is the same person who causes the sacrifices to ceases. And that is the same person who breaks the covenant. And that is the same person who confirms the covenant for a seven-year period (before breaking it exactly three-and-a-half years later).
If that is not the case, I would love to be set straight. I do not want to err on this subject. And it is admittedly difficult to understand. But merely asserting that “he” refers to Messiah is not persuasive to me.