Daniel 9:27 — Christ or antichrist?

[Dizerner]

It always seemed fairly obvious to me this was not referring to Christ, although once in awhile I'd consider it.

It seems there is quite a hardcore movement to make this referring to Christ instead of the antichrist.

Anyone have any thoughts on it?

 

[cjab]

I always took this to be an allusion to the era of Antiochus Epiphanes, in the first instance. Farrar is a good exponent. Antiochus Epiphanes is an early type (or forerunner) for antichrist.

Eve was the very first antichrist, the one who sought salvation of satan. It is a possibility that the last antichrist(s) will be female and / or feminist (cf. the woman on the beast).

In the first book of De 'cultu feminarum ( I. 1. 2), a withering attack on female fashions, Tertullian invokes the curse of Eve by means of a cruel
and impressive metaphor: "Tu es diaboli ianua," he writes; "You are the devil's gateway." (F. Forrester Church. The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Apr., 1975), pp. 83-101).

 

[Stephen]

Seemed pretty straightforward as a reference to Christ and the destruction of the temple and the end of the animal sacrifices.

 

[cjab]

Seemed pretty straightforward as a reference to Christ and the destruction of the temple and the end of the animal sacrifices.

...until you understand that the AD70 event wasn't the first time in the history of Israel that animal sacrifices had been abolished.

 

[Stephen]

...until you understand that the AD70 event wasn't the first time in the history of Israel that animal sacrifices had been abolished.

IIRC it was the 3rd (Babylon, Antiochus, and then Rome).

However in only one of those instances was the covenant confirmed, i.e. Christ's sacrifice confirmed God's covenant. Christ was also cut off in the midst of a week (i.e. his ministry was 3 to 3.5 years). And further Hebrews goes into great detail as to why Christ's sacrifice ends the animal sacrifices (at least until Ezekiel's temple).

The reading is based on the unpopular around here, but popular in actual scholarship, view that Matthew 24 (and Mark 13 and Luke 21) are talking primarily about the destruction of temple per the apostle's primary question, and also talking about the return of Christ per the apostle's secondary question.

Adding to that, I believe Daniel says something to the effect of "abomination of desolation" three times with various wording in chapters 8-10. In 9:27 (LXX) he uses a specific wording that matches what Jesus uses when describing the destruction of the temple (Matt 24).

 

[cjab]

IIRC it was the 3rd (Babylon, Antiochus, and then Rome).

However in only one of those instances was the covenant confirmed, i.e. Christ's sacrifice confirmed God's covenant. Christ was also cut off in the midst of a week (i.e. his ministry was 3 to 3.5 years). And further Hebrews goes into great detail as to why Christ's sacrifice ends the animal sacrifices (at least until Ezekiel's temple).

The reading is based on the unpopular around here, but popular in actual scholarship, view that Matthew 24 (and Mark 13 and Luke 21) are talking primarily about the destruction of temple per the apostle's primary question, and also talking about the return of Christ per the apostle's secondary question.

Adding to that, I believe Daniel says something to the effect of "abomination of desolation" three times with various wording in chapters 8-10. In 9:27 (LXX) he uses a specific wording that matches what Jesus uses when describing the destruction of the temple (Matt 24).

There is no doubt that the cessation of the offering by Antiochus presaged the final destruction of the temple, and so Daniel became a dual fulfilment prophecy (may be ongoing). Christ didn't end animal sacrifice. He caused the Old Covenant to become obsolete: the sacrifices still continued until AD70. The error I believe is to rule out Antiochus as being the initial focus of Daniel. Actually Antiochus is a very exact fulfilment of this passage in Daniel (apart from the 70 years of weeks). But every attempt to make the dates conform exactly to events is fruitless.

 

[rakovsky]

This is referring to Dan. 9

KJV
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.

NET
26. Now after the sixty-two weeks,
an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.
As for the city and the sanctuary,
the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
Until the end of the war that has been decreed
there will be destruction.

27. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

Rabbinic tradition considers Daniel's 70 weeks to be Messianic. A common Christian idea is that in verse 26, the anointed one who is cut off is the Messiah, as in Isaiah 53:8:
"for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."

However, @Dizerner is probably asking about the "coming Prince", and the one who confirms a covenant, and the one who brings sacrifices to a halt. It's not immediately clear if these are all referring to the same person (Messiah, the "coming prince" who has people, and the confirmer of a covenant).