Michael F. Blume

© 2001 Michael F. Blume

All Rights Reserved

I recently read an article in the Summer 2001 edition of CONNECT magazine written by an Apostolic who proposed that Kingdom Eschatology incorrectly teaches that there was only one prince mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27, regarding the 70 weeks of Daniel. The argument was based upon an attempt to prove there must be a gap between the 69th and the 70th weeks of Daniel's 70 weeks noted in Daniel 9:24. However, the information said to be promoted by Kingdom Eschatologists in this article was absolutely incorrect. Let me try to set the record straight regarding what Kingdom Eschatologists actually believe regarding the issue of the "prince" in Daniel 9, and also address some other concerns raised by the particular author who misrepresented Kingdom Eschatology.


Here is the scripture in question:


Daniel 9:24-27

(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. (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. (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. (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.




The entire issue circles around the identity of the "he" in verse 27.


Daniel 9:27

(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Who is the "he" who confirms a covenant with many for one week? Futurists, who believe that the entire 70 weeks is not yet fulfilled, contend that the "he" is the antichrist. Kingdom Eschatologists contend that the "he" is not the antichrist but is the Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ. Let us prove that the "he" most certainly is Jesus Christ.


It has been argued by some Futurists that Kingdom Eschatologists teach the prince in verse 26 is Jesus, and that Kingdom Eschatologists therefore teach that Jesus destroyed the temple accord to the statement, "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." This is simply a straw man argument (an argument that attacks a belief supposedly held by another group while in reality the other group holds no such belief at all!).


Jesus is certainly the Messiah the Prince of verse 25. Nobody in Christianity argues that. The second prince noted in verse 26, "the prince that shall come," is not Jesus Christ. That is not the problem between Futurists and Kingdom Eschatologists. The real issue is the identity of the "he" noted in the first phrase of verse 27.




In the straw man argument proposed by some futurists, the aspect of the lower case letter "p" in the word "prince" from the phrase, "prince that shall come," is a matter of supposed proof that Kingdom Eschatologists are incorrect. Once again, Kingdom Eschatologists do not believe the prince in verse 26 is Jesus. So the argument about who this prince is, is not an issue anyway! But simply for the sake of noting proper study manners, I do wish to point out that it is unwise to prove a doctrine based upon the translators' preference of capitalization in a word! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, every word was comprised of capital letters! This shows some very weak study manners used by those Futurists who argue their point using such methods as pointing to what words are capitalized or not..


The prince in verse 25 is Jesus and the prince in 26 is not Jesus.


That is a fact.


That is not the question, though. The question is the identity of the "he" in verse 27.

So it is not a question of whether Jesus destroyed the temple and the city according to verse 26. The prince in verse 26, who was responsible for the temple and city destruction of 70 AD, was not Jesus! It was the Roman "prince". The Roman people came and destroyed the temple and City by 70 AD. Jesus and His people did not destroy the temple.




Analyzing the grammar of verses 25 through 27 shows us that the "he" who confirms a covenant for seven years is Jesus Christ. The subject of the discussion is found in verse 25, and is the Messiah the Prince. Verse 25 mentions a span of time of "seven weeks" and "threescore and two weeks." Seven plus sixty-two is sixty-nine. The Messiah the Prince is on the scene after the first 69 weeks. And we read that after the "threescore and two weeks", Messiah shall be cut off. What is "after" the threescore and two weeks? It is the 70th WEEK! During the time after the 69th week, which is during the 70th week, Messiah is cut off. And this fits perfectly with the sequence of events that occurred in the Biblical texts of the New Testament. Jesus came, and 3.5 years later was crucified, or cut off. The "week" is a week of seven years. All agree with that. And in the midst of the "week", the sacrifice and oblation ceased. God would never again accept sacrifice of blood, since Christ was the final sacrifice God would ever recognize. This refers to the crucifixion where Christ was "cut off" due to an untimely death, as opposed to death by natural old age. He was "cut off" since He was killed. And he was not cut off for Himself! He died for the salvation of humanity! Praise God!


Not only would Christ be cut off after the 69 weeks, but the people of the prince that shall come would destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple). This was fulfilled by the year 70 AD. Desolations were "determined." Jesus Christ referred to the destruction of the Temple, Himself, in Matthew 23.


Matthew 23:37-38

(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

"Your house is left unto you desolate."


And then we come to the verse in question. After all this information is provided, we suddenly read of "he" who confirms the covenant with many for one week. Grammar demands this "he" simply cannot be the "prince that shall come" in verse 26. The subject in question is the Messiah the Prince of verse 25.


Get the sequence of events.


The Messiah comes and is cut off.


Then a certain people destroy the city and sanctuary.


And "he" confirms the covenant with many for one week. Who? "He." This "he" must be the Messiah of verse 25! It cannot be the "prince that shall come" because this reference to the "prince that shall come" is not the subject in any point of the entire writing! After noting the cutting off of the messiah, we read that a certain people come and destroy the city and temple. And a side note to this temple destruction is that this particular people belong to a "prince that shall come". The point that is stressed, though, is not this "prince that shall come". Reference to this second prince serves only as a side note, telling us who this "people" belong to and what nation they are from.


Saying that the "he" in verse 27 is some antichrist, is similar to misinterpreting the following sentence, "Steven went to the store beside the house owned by Mr. Brown, and he purchased a loaf of bread." To say that the "he" at the end of the phrase is Mr. Brown is to make the same error as do the Futurists when they say that the "he" in verse 27 is antichrist. The '"he" in my example of Steven going to the store is of course referring to Steven. It is not Mr. Brown. It cannot be due to the grammar I used. "Steven" is the subject. Mr. Brown is only a side note! And that is exactly the manner in which the prince that shall come is involved in the discussion. He is a side note, and only a clarifier as to the identity of the people who will destroy the city and temple. He is not the subject in any sense of the word. And to make him the grammatical "subject" of Verse 27 is to simply destroy all methods of proper grammar and the association of sentences and their grammatical "subjects" with one another in the context of the particular discussion.


The Bible says nothing about a "prince" other than Jesus who confirms a covenant with anybody for seven years.




Those who argue this reasoning state that Jesus did not make a covenant with anybody for a seven year period. The text reads that he would confirm a covenant with many for seven years. To confirm a covenant is to refer to an already existent covenant! It is to support a covenant and make it sure. And Jesus most certainly did make a covenant sure! He "confirmed" the covenant.


Hebrews 10:5

(5) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.

In other words, God never did ultimately desire animal sacrifice. Jesus Christ fulfilled the perfect will of God by coming as the sacrifice ultimately planned before the foundation of the world. He confirmed this covenant of God in the statement noted in Hebrews 10:5.


Jeremiah noted the covenant as follows:


Jeremiah 31:31-34

(31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

And Hebrews speaks of this covenant that Jesus made sure through His death.


Hebrews 8:6-13

(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

His death confirmed it by His blood.


Hebrews 9:14-20

(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (18) Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. (19) For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, (20) Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Jesus also said His blood confirmed the covenant.


Matthew 26:28

(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Above we read of Christ, the one to confirm the covenant. And we also read of the covenant itself. And the blood is said to be the element that would confirm that covenant. Jesus even said that his blood would be shed "for many" for the remission of sins. Daniel 9:27 said the covenant was confirmed "with many." What perfect fulfillment of the words of Daniel 9:27!


The great covenant prophesied to come in Jeremiah stressed the forgiveness of sins.

Jeremiah 31:34

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Jesus noted that as the stress of the covenant confirmed by His blood in saying, "which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Remission of sins is the same language in Greek as saying "forgiveness of sins."



aphesis \{af'-es-is\}

AV translated as "remission" 9 times, as "forgiveness" 6 times, as "deliverance" 1 time, as "liberty" 1 time -- used 17 times in the New Testament.

  1. release from bondage or imprisonment

  2. forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty.

Isaiah used the term "many" in reference to who would be saved by the great covenant.


Isaiah 53:11

(11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Jesus also made a covenant. When Jesus Christ read from the scroll of Isaiah after His baptism, He quoted these words:


Luke 4:18-19

(18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

He then said it was fulfilled that day.


Luke 4:20-21

(20) And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. (21) And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Let us turn to the reference Jesus took from Isaiah.


Isaiah 61:1-3

(1) The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (2) To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; (3) To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

As we go through this chapter we eventually come to these words:


Isaiah 61:8

(8) For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

All of this is in the contextual frame of time of verses 1-3. And Jesus said that was fulfilled in the day He read the text in the synagogue. So we find that Jesus did indeed fulfill the scripture in making a covenant, and also confirming it. He confirmed the covenant that was foretold to come by the Old Testament prophets. And He also made it. It did not say that He "made" it for seven years, though. He "confirmed" it for seven years. That does not mean the covenant would only work for a seven-year duration. It was confirmed to the Israelites. 70 Weeks were determined strictly for natural Israel alone, and as prophecy was fulfilled, the Gospel was finally experienced by the Gentiles. And 3.5 years after the cross, the restriction to natural Israel was completed.




It has been contended that sacrifices continued past Christ's sacrifice, supposedly proving that Christ's sacrifice did not indeed cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease as verse 27 states. However, we are seeing these things from the eyes and perspective of God. God deemed all sacrifices and oblations to have ceased when Christ died.


There would be a ceasing of sacrifice should a sacrifice finally occur that would make the comers thereunto perfect and complete. Once the worshippers were purged by a sacrifice, and had no more conscience of sins, no further sacrifices would be required. This very issue is dealt with in the New Testament book of Hebrews, and the Futurists are missing all of this. Could it be that Hebrews went into such detail as to what would cause sacrifices to "cease" to partly prove that Christ did indeed fulfill Daniel's prophecy amongst others?


Hebrews 10:1-2

(1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Here, the Bible says that a perfect sacrifice would cause the further sacrifices to have "ceased to be offered." It is beyond doubt that Jesus Christ was that perfect sacrifice. Therefore, it only stands to reason that His sacrifice ended all sacrifices that would even be recognized as "sacrifices" by God. To say that Christ's sacrifice did not fulfill Hebrews 10:1-2 in standing as a perfect sacrifice is to deny the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ. The entire point of Hebrews 10 is that Christ's offering was a perfect sacrifice that purges the very consciences of believers. And in the same context, we read that sacrifices cease to be offered when one is offered that makes the comers thereunto perfect. Did not Christ stand as the perfect sacrifice making the comers thereunto perfect? If so, then verse 2 must stand, also! Sacrifices ceased to be offered.


The Jews may have continued to offer what they called "sacrifices" to God after Christ died, but in God's eyes they were not even sacrifices at all, but acts of unbelief and rejection of the Messiah! And in His eyes, and all the eyes of the believers who knew Christ, sacrifices ceased to be offered. From whose perspective should we look at things anyway? God wrote the book! Let's see it from His perspective in light of His word in Hebrews 10.


Because the sacrifices of the Old Testament never perfected the worshippers, we read;


Hebrews 10:5-12

(5) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (6) In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. (7) Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; (9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Hebrews teaches in explicit detail the very truth of Daniel 9:27, using Daniel's very words!


Daniel 9:27

(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.



Futurists claim that the antichrist makes a covenant with the Jews to offer sacrifices once again after almost 2,000 years of having offered no blood, by giving them a temple in which to worship God. This idea is the result of haphazard mingling of scriptures with no explicit statement saying anything to the effect of such an idea. Nowhere does the Bible state that an antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews to sacrifice animals once again in a rebuilt temple. All that we are given by Futurists is the following scriptures:


Daniel 8:9-14

(9) And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. (10) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. (11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. (12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. (13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (14) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Daniel 9:27

(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.

Notice that Daniel 8 says nothing about the little horn, supposed to be the coming antichrist, making a covenant with the Jews to offer sacrifices after having not been able to do so due to not having a temple for almost 2,000 years. And Daniel 8:9-14 is alleged to be linked to the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 where a "son of perdition" is said to stand in the temple of God and show himself that he is God. But nothing is said anywhere in any of these references of an antichrist making a covenant with Jews to sacrifice to God in the temple!


Futurists have shown a very weak manner of study methods by taking the story of the little horn, who would take away a daily sacrifice, and blending it with Paul's prophecy of a son of perdition exalting himself as God in the temple. Then they tried to force Daniel 9:27 into it all. Yes there is similarity between Daniel 9:27's reference to the causing of the sacrifice to cease with the note in Daniel 8 that says the little horn takes away the daily sacrifice. But Daniel 9:27 does not say that the cessation of the sacrifices and oblations had anything to do with breaking the covenant that was confirmed. It simply says a covenant was "confirmed," not "made," and sacrifices ceased 3.5 years later.


How Futurists arrive at a conclusion of saying the covenant is the commencement of sacrifices by the Jews in a temple is through assumption that the little horn's removal of sacrifices, and the son of perdition's exaltation of himself in the temple are one and the same event. They assume that the son of perdition's self-exaltation in God's temple is how the little horn of Daniel 8 takes away sacrifices.




However, we are told in Daniel who the little horn actually is, and this destroys the futurists' entire concept.


Daniel 8:9

(9) And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

Daniel 8:21-22

(21) And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. (22) Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

This little horn who waxed great is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The prophecy was fulfilled over two thousand years ago! This empire existed before Rome ever conquered Palestine and ruled it during Christ's day! And it is commonly interpreted that the four kingdoms rising from this nation were the four generals who divided the empire amongst themselves after Alexander the Great's death.


Antiochus IV (Antiochus Epiphanes) Pronounced As: antiks pifnz, d. 163 B.C., king of Syria (175 B.C.-163 B.C.), son of Antiochus III and successor of his brother Seleucus IV. Antiochus is best known for his attempt to Hellenize Judaea and extirpate Judaism-a policy that instigated the rebellion of the Maccabees. Antiochus invaded Egypt, which was torn by strife between Ptolemy VI and his brother (later Ptolemy VII), and would probably have conquered that region if the Romans had not intervened in his siege of Alexandria (168). (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright 2000, Columbia University Press).


Antiochus Epiphanes was foretold to take away the daily sacrifice. This daily sacrifice was the sacrifice of the lamb in the morning, and in the evening, which the priests were hindered from offering, by the crowds of Heathens in the temple; or prohibited by the order of Antiochus; for he forbad burnt offerings, sacrifice, and libation, to be made in the temple.


Josephus wrote:


"2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremist wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves." (The Wars Of The Jews, Or, The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem, Book I).


The books of I and II Maccabees are not considered inspired of God but are certainly trustworthy resources for historical references. This following statement was made concerning the abominations that Antiochus set up.


"Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts:" (1 Maccabees 1:47)


"and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate; " Daniel 11:31


A garrison of Heathen soldiers in the temple drove the priests and people from it, and made it desolate, and also an idol was placed in the temple. Idols in Scripture were called abominations. The image of Jupiter Olympius was placed upon the altar of God by Antiochus, on the fifteenth day of the month Cisieu, in the hundred and forty fifth year of the Seleucidae, and is called the abomination of desolations.


1 Maccabees 1:20-64

(20) And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, (21) And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, (22) And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials. and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off. (23) He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found. (24) And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly. (25) Therefore there was a great mourning in Israel, in every place where they were; (26) So that the princes and elders mourned, the virgins and young men were made feeble, and the beauty of women was changed. (27) Every bridegroom took up lamentation, and she that sat in the marriage chamber was in heaviness, (28) The land also was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion. (29) And after two years fully expired the king sent his chief collector of tribute unto the cities of Juda, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude, (30) And spake peaceable words unto them, but all was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel. [See Daniel 8:25] (31) And when he had taken the spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side. (32) But the women and children took they captive, and possessed the cattle. (33) Then builded they the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for them. (34) And they put therein a sinful nation, wicked men, and fortified themselves therein. (35) They stored it also with armour and victuals, and when they had gathered together the spoils of Jerusalem, they laid them up there, and so they became a sore snare: (36) For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. (37) Thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary, and defiled it: (38) Insomuch that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled because of them: whereupon the city was made an habitation of strangers, and became strange to those that were born in her; and her own children left her. (39) Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her Sabbath's into reproach her honour into contempt. (40) As had been her glory, so was her dishonour increased, and her excellency was turned into mourning. (41) Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, (42) And every one should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. (43) Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath. (44) For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Juda that they should follow the strange laws of the land, (45) And forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath's and festival days: (46) And pollute the sanctuary and holy people: (47) Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts: (48) That they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleaness and profanation: (49) To the end they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances. (50) And whosoever would not do according to the commandment of the king, he said, he should die. (51) In the selfsame manner wrote he to his whole kingdom, and appointed overseers over all the people, commanding the cities of Juda to sacrifice, city by city. (52) Then many of the people were gathered unto them, to wit every one that forsook the law; and so they committed evils in the land; (53) And drove the Israelites into secret places, even wheresoever they could flee for succour. (54) Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon thealtar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side; (55) And burnt incense at the doors of their houses, and in the streets. (56) And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, they burnt them with fire. (57) And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death. (58) Thus did they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities. (59) Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God. (60) At which time according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised. (61) And they hanged the infants about their necks, and rifled their houses, and slew them that had circumcised them. (62) Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing. (63) Wherefore the rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they died. (64) And there was very great wrath upon Israel.

1 Maccabees 2:1-14

(1) In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin. (2) And he had five sons, Joannan, called Caddis: (3) Simon; called Thassi: (4) Judas, who was called Maccabeus: (5) Eleazar, called Avaran: and Jonathan, whose surname was Apphus. (6) And when he saw the blasphemies that were committed in Juda and Jerusalem, (7) He said, Woe is me! wherefore was I born to see this misery of my people, and of the holy city, and to dwell there, when it was delivered into the hand of the enemy, and the sanctuary into the hand of strangers? (8) Her temple is become as a man without glory. (9) Her glorious vessels are carried away into captivity, her infants are slain in the streets, her young men with the sword of the enemy. (10) What nation hath not had a part in her kingdom and gotten of her spoils? (11) All her ornaments are taken away; of a free woman she is become a bondslave. (12) And, behold, our sanctuary, even our beauty and our glory, is laid waste, and the Gentiles have profaned it. (13) To what end therefore shall we live any longer? (14) Then Mattathias and his sons rent their clothes, and put on sackcloth, and mourned very sore.

The temple itself was ordered to be called the temple of Jupiter Olympius.


"And to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem, and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and that in Garizim, of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the place." (2 Maccabees 6:2)


Then Daniel continues to write:


Daniel 8:23-25

(23) And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. (24) And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. (25) And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

The "king of fierce countenance" has been purported to be antichrist as well. The little horn is also the king of fierce countenance, Antiochus Epiphanes. The simple reference to the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation in Daniel 9:27, without any support of whether that is caused by an evil one, is thrown into the picture of the little horn and the son of perdition. The truth is that the "he" in Daniel 9:27, and the little horn and the son of perdition are three entirely different people! What proves they are one and the same? Assumption?


On the other hand, to say that the "he" in Daniel 9:27 is Christ is supported by the thought of the Lord's own words concerning the confirmation of a covenant, likewise supported by Hebrews 10's reference to Christ's sacrifice ending acceptable sacrifices in God's eyes. And furthermore, Christ distinctly ministered 3.5 years before He was cut off in crucifixion, just as Daniel 9:25-27 shows that Christ would come at the 69th week and be cut off mid-way through that week. The New Testament itself gives a parable that confirms Christ ministered for over three years.


Luke 13:6-9

(6) He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. (7) Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? (8) And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: (9) And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Christ is the dresser who ministered to Israel without converting the nation, and given another year to continue. And partway through that last year, He was crucified. And the fig tree was cut down.


There is far more evidence in the Bible, aside from the assumption of the Futurist position, showing the "he" in verse 27 to be Jesus Christ.




The 70th week of Daniel is not a spiritualized week of untold number of actual days. It is a seven-year period. In the midst of the period, Christ was crucified, and 3.5 years elapsed after that to fulfill the time for Israel alone being privy to God's workings. Note that the gentiles did not come into the picture of experiencing salvation until after 3.5 years. Only Jews were filled with the Spirit in Acts 2:4. People have estimated that Stephen's death, when Saul of Tarsus first began to be pricked in his heart concerning the Christians whom he persecuted, who later preached and turned to the Gentiles alone in ministry, occurred 3.5 years after Jesus died and rose again. However, the precise dating of when the final 3.5 years were fulfilled is not necessary. The whole point of Daniel was "after" the 69th week, Christ would be cut off and make an end of sacrifices.


If we were to be speaking about units of days "days," instead of units of "weeks," saying that some time in the last "day" there would be the cutting off of Messiah, we would not be concerned if it was in the midst of the day Christ was crucified or the latter end of the day. The point would be that He fulfilled the work on that "day." The entire "day", itself, is what would be the issue. So it is with the "weeks." Daniel was told of events to occur in the units of "weeks." And after the 69th "week" Messiah would be cut off. And we find in verse 27 it was precisely in the middle of the 70th week when Christ ended sacrifices. It really doesn't matter what occurred during the last half of the last "week", any more than it would matter what occurred in the period of the daytime left after Christ died on the cross. The point is, "in the midst of the week" the Messiah ended sacrifice.




What about the phrase: "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Some propose that saying Christ is the "he" in verse 27 demands we promote blasphemy! They claim that the aforementioned phrase can be rewritten to say, "and as upon a wing abominations, a desolator until the end," and that Christ can never be imagined to be called a "desolator until the end." However, a good marginal Bible shows the phrase, " and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate," can be read as, " with the abominable armies he shall make it desolate, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolator." It is not saying that Christ is an abominable desolator.


Daniel 9:27

(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.

Another manner of saying the last phrase of verse 27 is, "on the wing of detestable things, or abominations, comes one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." This means the one who makes desolate is a different personage than the "he" who confirms a covenant.


Here is the ASV rendering:


ASV Daniel 9:27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.


You can see a separation of the one who confirms the covenant with another one coming who makes desolate.


DARBY TRANSLATION: Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the protection of abominations there shall be a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.





Romans 11 speaks of two points regarding the "times of the gentiles" and the remnant of Israel being saved. However, these two points occur in the church age alone, and not the church age plus a period after the church age.


I propose that the entire issue of Christ turning to Israel after the rapture of the church is based upon an interpretation of Romans 11, which interpretation is in error.


Romans 11:1

(1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

This sets the scene for the chapter and its issues. Paul is speaking about natural Israel, and himself being a natural Jew. God had not cast away natural Israel in Paul's day. This is the all-important point we require in order to follow the rest of the chapter's context. God had not cut Israel off to never allow another Jew into the Kingdom. God always had a remnant of natural Israelites as His people.


In fact, we can jump ahead in the same chapter and read a similar statement with a similar hypothetical question.


Romans 11:11

(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid

God no more casts away His people than he caused them to stumble to never be able to stand again. Both verses 1 and 11 are connected. Paul is getting to the same point in both verses. He spoke of his present day in both cases and told us that God did not cast away His people nor did He cause them to stumble to never see them rise again.

More about this later.


Paul continued


Romans 11:2-5

(2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, (3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (4) But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

This "remnant" always represented "all of Israel." That was their purpose. Though all Israel seemed to have chased after false gods, the Lord told Elijah that all Israel had indeed not followed other gods. A remnant remained faithful, and that meant that God could still say that Israel was His people. The remnant preserves the bloodline of Israelites who were faithful. The remnant thereby stands for the entire, and does not allow for the nation to disappear entirely.


If a remnant is saved, then God's promise to save Israel is fulfilled. Paul said that in his present time there was a remnant. Notice his use of the present tense pointing us to understand these facts to be true during the period of the first century.


Romans 11:7

(7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Paul asks a hypothetical question that some might ask upon hearing that the greater part of Israel had fallen away. The question is actually, "What is the true picture of the situation now that the greater part of Israel has fallen away?" Paul's answer is that the entire population of Israel missed the very thing they were seeking, and the remnant, or election of NATURAL JEWS, were saved. Once again, this is speaking about Paul's day. The rest of the population of Israel remained blinded. Only a fraction of the population of Israel obtained what all of them were seeking.


Romans 11:8

(8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Paul said that both the idea of Israel being saved and the idea of Israel being given eyes to sleep are a mystery. Why? He is saying that one could rightly state that all Israel is saved and also rightly state that most of Israel are blinded. In other words, Israel is simultaneously said to be both saved and blinded. Its a mystery when we look at the Bible and read of all Israel being saved at the same time it is said that Israel was given eyes of slumber. However, Paul explains the mystery.


The remnant, or the elect, of Israel were in the church during Paul's day. But, when the Bible speaks of "Israel being saved", it is only referring to the remnant. Israel was also blinded, in the sense that the vast majority of the remainder of Israel were not saved but blinded. Paul continues to quote scripture to support his view that it was foretold that many Jews be blinded.


Romans 11:9-10

(9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: (10) Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

But this stumbling did not occur to the point that no Israelites would ever be able to be saved in the future, as is explained next.


Romans 11:11

(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

The Gentiles have come in through their fall. So God wisely caused a blindness to occur.


Romans 11:12

(12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

The diminishing of the Jews is seen in their blindness. Israel was blinded. However a remnant would be brought in to fulfill God's standard of always having an election stand for His people. All the Jews were said to be responsible for having crucified the Lord (Acts 2:23). All Israel was therefore blinded. However, an election of believing Jews would soon exist!


Romans 11:13-14

(13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Paul said that in his present day he preached the gospel to gentiles in order to provoke the Israelites to jealousy and cause them to also believe in Christ. In other words, Paul hoped to win some Israelites in his day, who were yet blinded. He did not throw the hopes of their salvation ahead into the future beyond our day into the 21st century! He understood that in his own day there is a remnant that would be saved, along with those who were already saved. Then Paul continues the thought of verse 14 as follows.


Romans 11:15

(15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

He explained that the receiving of these Jews, being life from the dead, is what describes the remnant who are saved and would be saved through his personal preaching in his day. In other words, after speaking of his then-present efforts to provoke Israel to jealousy and win some more of the elected remnant, he used the words that Futurists have thrown out into the future! He did not regard verse 15 as occurring at the end of the gentile age at all! He referred to his present day in which he preached to gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy in hopes of winning some more of the elect remnant.


Romans 11:23

(23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

He stated that in his time, during the days of the early church, if the Jew believed due to having been provoked to jealousy by Paul's preaching, then they shall be graft in again. He did not say that God shall graft in the Jews after the gentiles receive no more preaching. He said that during the gentile times the Jews can be graft in if they believe as a result of being provoked to jealousy. God is able to graft them into the church during Paul's day.


How would they believe? They would believe through the successful attempts by Paul's ministry to provoke them to jealousy.


Romans 11:24

(24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

This verse also refers to the Jews coming in through being provoked by Paul's preaching which He accomplished during the church age while preaching to gentiles in the first century. He did not put this event off into the future. Futurists have put this ahead in to the future, not the Bible.




Romans 11:25-26

(25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Above we read the very controversial verses. But if you read it carefully, Paul is not saying AFTER THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES will Israel be saved, but he said that a prophecy would be fulfilled that would seem contradictory to the actual state of things.


The prophecy was "All Israel shall be saved."


Verse 25's statement "Blindness in part is happened to Israel," fulfills the prophecy that "all Israel shall be saved." Paul said this is a mystery! I guess it is a mystery! It sounds contradictory! But really it is not.


BEFORE THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES ARE FULFILLED there is a remnant that would be saved, who would count as all Israel being saved.


Remember that the remnant always counts as the entire.


There are some more of the remnant who were not yet saved when Paul wrote this, but who would be saved before the times of the gentiles be fulfilled. That is the context of verses 5 through to 26.


During Paul's time, he sought for the remnant to be saved. And since the remnant counts for all of Israel, Paul said that this fulfills the promise of all Israel being saved. Paul did not say that after the times of the gentiles is fulfilled that THEN shall all Israel be saved. He said that DURING the times of the Gentiles that a remnant would be saved, while the rest of the Israelites remain blinded, and THAT fulfills scripture. He said "So..." or, in other words, "because of a remnant being saved during the church age, the scripture is fulfilled which speaks of all Israel being saved." The ALL ISRAEL is pointing to the remnant only.




We can go back only two chapters in this writer's very same book to learn who the "all Israel" is.


Romans 9:6-8

(6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The writer, himself, stated that the only people whom God considers to be Israel are those who are the children of the Promise. Who is the "all Israel" who shall be saved? Paul said, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." He restricted the "all Israel" to the children of promise. You must ignore this information prior to Romans 11 in order to believe that Romans 11 is speaking of natural Israel, not born of the promise, are the "all Israel". You must keep this in mind in order to understand chapter 11.


Blindness IN PART means that not every Israelite was blinded. It was not total blindness that he spoke about. It was blindness in part. The remnant was not blinded. All Israel is said to have believed because of the fact that the remnant believed, before the fullness of the gentiles be come in.


Get it straight. Paul did not say that all would be saved after the times of the gentiles, due to some idea that God will turn to Israel after those times are fulfilled. Paul taught that during those times of the gentiles, when he provoked Israel to jealousy through ministry solely to the gentiles, a remnant would be saved which will satisfy God and fulfill the scripture that said, "Israel shall be saved."


Blindness in part is occurred with Israel, because God always had a remnant and would not permit total blindness to occur in that nation. And if there is blindness that only exists in part, then there is the other part comprised of those Israelites who were not blinded, but believed and saw the light of Christ. And due to the presence of that remnant who were not blinded and who believed, the purpose of God in declaring that all Israel shall be saved is fulfilled! How so? Let me repeat it again the remnant counts as the whole. If God has a part, or a remnant, who are saved, then the remnant stands for the whole, enabling God to say that "all Israel is saved."





Romans 11:26

(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Paul quoted the following:


Isaiah 59:20

(20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Isaiah writes in the next verse words that clarify this thought.


Romans 11:27

(27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Isaiah 59:21

(21) As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

This covenant is none other than the New Testament plan of salvation! And before verse 20 we read:


Isaiah 59:16-17

(16) And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. (17) For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.

This is clearly the plan of salvation as we know it! What other covenant causes us to turn from transgression or take away their sins besides Acts 2:38 and the remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ?


Acts 2:38

(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What other means does God have besides remission of sins in Jesus' name that He uses in order turn ungodliness away from anybody?


Romans 11:25-28

(25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Above Paul states that then-presently there was a remnant not yet converted. They were still enemies at that time, as far as the Christians were concerned. But before the times of the gentiles would be fulfilled, the remainder of the elected remnant would have come in due to God's promise of their election.


Only one other verse refers to the fullness of the gentiles.


Luke 21:24

(24) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

And that is found written after the flowing:


Luke 21:20-22

(20) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (21) Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. (22) For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

This is undoubtedly referring to 70 AD. When the Christians saw Jerusalem encompassed with armies, they indeed did flee the city and went to Pella. Rome devastated the city for 3.5 years. And Jesus said that event would end the times of the gentiles. Jerusalem would be no more the home of the temple and the ritual sacrifice of Law.


Thank God that there was a remnant of Israel who represented the whole, thus fulfilling prophecy that all Israel shall be saved!


This explanation of Jesus' words agrees with Daniel's vision of four beasts, the last being Rome, with no further beasts, or kingdoms of concern, to follow.


Notice this connection:


Revelation 11:2

(2) But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Reference to the gentiles being given the opportunity to tread the holy city beneath their feet is directly connected to Jesus' words concerning the times of the Gentiles.  


Michael F. Blume works with Rightly Dividing The Word and is Assistant Pastor at Bible Truth Church in El Campo, TX.  His website's address is: www.mikeblume.com                                                   




© Copyright 2008 Rightly Dividing the Word - All Rights Reserved

Please assume that all materials on this website are copyrighted by Rightly Dividing the Word. For permission and details see our terms and conditions. For problems with this website, please contact webmaster1@rightlydividingtheword.com.