This is a completely incorrect reading of Daniel 9:24-27. The context demonstrates it is NOT the Christ that is being referred to, but Antichrist. But, this argument has been made millions of times — I won’t change anyone’s mind here. So, blessings to all my Brothers and Sisters who look for HIS RETURN for HIS PEOPLE. I think if we can all agree on that, we do well!
I’ll answer your ‘context’ argument again.
One Dispensational argument says that the he for verse 27 is the same throughout the entire verse, and since the second half of this verse deals with the overspreading of abominations, then this must be the antichrist.
However, such an argument excludes context. If one were to apply that same logic to the previous passage, verse 26, then one would have a conflict, because the first half of the verse is clearly the Messiah, and the second half of the verse is the people of the prince.
Lets look at this:
26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (A) be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince (B) 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.
27: And he (A) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (A) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he (B) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Note that both of these verses, 26 and 27, are CONJUNCTIVE (e.g. two complete sentences, with two different subjects, joined together by the conjunctive and) in their construct.
So, the first half of the conjunctive deals with the Messiah (A), and the second half of the conjunctive deals with a completely different subject, e.g. the people of the prince (B).
Therefore to be consistent, one would expect each verse to resemble an A-B, A-B construct.
Dispensationalism violates this Scriptural pattern by using an A-B, B-B construct!