Daniel 9 - Replacing Christ with the Antichrist

[BobRyan]

This is taken from another thread on BB - where I cannot post.

But the author of the post makes a good point for all to consider.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1516525#post1516525

Did you know that this view is not a new one at all, but used to be the majority view. Most commentators and writers up until about two centuries ago saw all these pronouns (or, at the very least, most) to refer to Messiah, not antichrist. Neither did they see a gap of many centuries between the 69th and 70th week. Here is a good sampling of writers, modern and not-so-modern, who believe along these lines:

Barnes, Albert: Barnes Notes on the Old Testament (ca 1942)
Calvin, John: Calvin's Commentaries (mid 1500's)
Clarke, A: Clarke's Commentary: Daniel (ca 1850's)
Gill, John: Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (ca mid-1700's)
Henry, Matthew: Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible (1706)
Jamieson, R., Fausset, & Brown: A commentary, critical and explanatory (1871)
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F: Commentary on the Old Testament (1866-1891)
Young, E J: The Prophecy of Daniel (1949)
Geneva Study Bible: Study Notes (1599)
Mauro, Philip: The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (1921)
Leupold, H. C.: Exposition of Daniel (Baker Book House, 1949)

Source: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm (Note: this website goes on to defend the opposite conclusion)

The above authors represent a wide range of Protestant denominations: Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc. This general belief in the chronological integrity of 70 weeks, and in the Christ-centeredness of it, was widely held by a variety of Christians.

in Christ,

Bob