Featured The Messianic Kingdom?

Christ was murdered "after" 483 years." When was that?
Keil and Deilitizsch say this:

The הַבָּא with the article: “he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the נָגִיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Dan_7:8, Dan_7:24., of Antichrist; and in Dan_8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הַבָּא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.

The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בַּשֶׁטֶף would refer back to הַבָּא. This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שֶׁטֶף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Dan_7:21, Dan_7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שֶׁטֶף, flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host.

The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since שֹׁמֵמוֹת has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.

the question then presses itself upon us, Who effects the confirming of the covenant?
The one week shall make the covenant grievous to many, for they shall have to bear oppression on account of their faith. On the other hand, Hofmann (Schriftbew.) renders it: The one week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. But none of these interpretations can be justified.

The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to הִגְבִּיר, since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of קִצּוֹ (his end), the last clause of Dan_9:26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also “the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (Dan_9:26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הַבָּא נָגִיד;” - further, “he who here is represented as 'causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease' is obviously identical with him who changes (Dan_7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of הִגְבִּיר to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage,” and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the Nagid Titus cannot naturally be understood. בְּרִית הִגְבִּיר means to strengthen a covenant, i.e., to make a covenant strong (Hitzig has not established the rendering: to make grievous).

Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God.

While the first clause of this verse announces what shall happen during the whole of the last week, the second treats only of the half of this period. הַשָׁבוּעַ חֲצִי

For, with reference to that remark, we have already shown in the explanation of the preceding verses that they do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and thus are not reconcilable with this interpretation of שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף. But the testimony of tradition for this interpretation in Josephus, De bello Jud. iv. 6. 3, that by the desecration of the temple on the part of the Zealots an old prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple was fulfilled, itself demonstrates (under the supposition that no other passage occur in the book of Daniel in which Josephus would be able to find the announcement of bloody abomination in the temple which proceeded even from the members of the covenant people) nothing further than that Josephus, with many of his contemporaries, found such a prophecy in this verse in the Alexandrine translation, but it does not warrant the correctness of this interpretation of the passage. This warrant would certainly be afforded by the words of our Lord regarding “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place” (Mat_24:15.; Mar_13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Dan_9:27) alone before His mind, and that He regarded the “abomination of desolation” as a sign announcing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But neither of these conditions is established. The expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is found not only in Dan_9:27 (where the lxx and Theod. have the plur. ἐρημώσεων), but also in Dan_11:31 (βδ. ἐρημώσεως) and Dan_12:11 (τὸ βδ. τῆς ἐρημώσεως), and thus may refer to one of these passages. The possibility of this reference is not weakened by the objection, “that the prophecy Daniel 11 and Dan_12:1-13 was generally regarded as fulfilled in the Maccabean times, and that the fulfilling of Daniel 9 was placed forward into the future in the time of Christ” (Hgstb.), because the Lord can have a deeper and more correct apprehension of the prophecies of Daniel than the Jewish writers of His time;

On these grounds we must affirm that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable.

Let us now, after explaining the separate clauses, present briefly the substance of this divine revelation. We find that the Dan_9:25-27 contain the following announcement: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the appearance of the Messias seven weeks shall pass away; after that, during threescore and two weeks the city shall be restored and built up amid the oppressions of the times; but after the sixty-two weeks the Messias shall be cut off, so that to Him nothing remains, and the city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of a prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but the war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week shall take away the service of sacrifice, and, borne on the wings of idol-abominations, shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated. - According to this, the first seven weeks are determined merely according to their beginning and their end, and nothing further is said as to their contents than may be concluded from the definition of its terminus a quo, “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” namely, that the restoring and the building of this city shall proceed during the period of time indicated. The sixty-two weeks which follow these seven weeks, ending with the coming of the Messias, have the same contents, only with the more special definition, that the restoration and the building in the broad open place and in the limited place shall be carried on in oppressive times. Hence it is clear that this restoration and building cannot denote the rebuilding of the city which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, but refers to the preservation and extension of Jerusalem to the measure and compass determined by God in the Messianic time, or under the dominion of the Messias, since He shall come at the end of the seven weeks, and after the expiry of the sixty-two weeks connected therewith shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him.

 

This is from Keil and Delitzsch commentary on the OT.
Franz Delitzsch lived 1813-1890, and from this passage exegetes a dispensational point of view. He was a Hebrew scholar, though certainly not conservative in his viewpoints.

 

No it doesn't. It means before the 70th week begins. It does not mean "within the 70th week." There is no way that you can get that out of that passage.

 

Philip Mauro on the 70th week of Daniel 9 answers DHK.

 

You are contradicting what scripture says.
Daniel didn't say: "within the 70th week," or "in the middle of the 70th week," etc. In fact he gave no reference at all to the death of Christ being in the 70th week. He could have. It would have been much easier to put in words that way, to be expressed that way. But that is not the way it was written.
He wrote "after (or at the end) of 69 weeks." Not at the beginning of the 70th and certainly not in the middle of the 70th week. It just does not say that. The 70th week stands alone. The Lord is crucified long before that time. There is no Messiah mentioned there.

There is a prince, but he is a wicked prince as the context and other paraphrases bear out. He is called "that foreigner," for a good reason.

Daniel 9:24-27
the people of the prince 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 shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

What covenant did Christ make with the Jews for one week? Can you locate that in history? What is it called? It would be (according to you) 3.5 years before his death, and a promise to the Jews lasting for seven years.

In verse 26 is a prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem. True or false?
It is true. By whom was the city of Jerusalem destroyed? Titus?
Titus was a Roman general.
It says the people of that prince that shall come destroy the city. It happened. Titus destroyed Jerusalem. But that is only a partial fulfillment. Not everything was fulfilled. There will be another "prince" like Titus that is still to come, but even more evil.
The "he" in verse 27 refers right back to Titus, or "prince."
Christ did not confirm any covenant with the Jews for one week, but a foreigner will, that is one who is not a Jew.
He is the rider of the white horse in Revelation 6--one who pretends to bring peace but in reality brings war and destruction. He has a bow but no arrows. He will conquer without arms--through treaties. Note the treaties that Obama is making with Iran and Israel right now. (trying to neutralize Israel, and arm Iran.) But the peace will be a false peace, for he himself will break it after 3.5 years.
This is directed to Jews.

Now aside from that, you toss aside all the scholarly work of others who have determined the exact date and even month that Christ was "cut off." Many have done this and shown the accuracy of this prophecy. You don't give any date at all. You don't say when 483 years is. You just throw 3.5 years at the end of it and say that is when Christ died (whenever history that may be), and that is it. You have no regard for history here. You give no date, no scholarship. You have disregarded all other evidence. Here is a prophecy calculated right down to the year and even month.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince 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.
--There is a starting point and an ending point. There is a decree that went out. It has a date, and even a month and a day. It has an exact calculation of 483 years. It is a careless disregard for scripture not to pay attention to such an exact period of time, and then just to slap a 3.5 years on the end of it, and say "that is when Christ died." How can that be??

 

That "he" refers to someone very evil. It refers to the prince to come of verse 26, not to the Messiah. It is not speaking of Christ. Christ is not evil.
Furthermore, what covenant of seven years did Christ make with the Jews?

What covenant of seven years did Christ break after 3.5 years?

What covenant did Christ make with the Jews and break it after 3.5 years?

 

Keil & Delitzsch make it clear what the Hebrew says about verse 27

 

He shall confirm the covenant for one week.
A week is for seven years. When did it begin and when did it end?

 

The verse plainly says:
"He (which you interpret to be Christ) shall confirm the covenant for one week."
Give the dates, or when, did Christ ever confirm or make a covenant with the Jews for a period of seven years?
Why can't you answer this question?

 

In your post you still avoided this question. Why?
If Christ died in the midst of this week, 3.5 years in, which was 33 A.D., according to most, then what great event happened in 30 A.D, and then again in 37 A.D.--a stretch of 7 years?
He shall confirm the covenant for seven years (one week). What would be significant about 30 A.D.? What happened in 30 A.D. in the life of Christ, 3.5 years before He died that he made a covenant of any kind with who??
What happened in 37 A.D. 3.5 years after He died. The destruction of Jerusalem was not in 37 A.D. Thus even you believe in a gap, just like your "rapture-ready" friends do. You can't deny it, or runaway from it. There is a gap you are ignoring of at least 33 years? What happened?