Daniel 9 - he shall put an end to sacrifice

[Adam Olive]

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.

I understand that the "he" who makes strong the covenant with many to be Jesus and the "one week" to be the time between the comings.

It would seem then that in terms of grammar the "he" who ends sacrifice must also be Jesus.

But my difficulty is this: everywhere else in Daniel the making of an end to sacrifice refers to the evil action of an antichrist figure. So within Daniel does it not seem more exegetically consistent to see here another reference to an antichrist figure and hence the one who makes a covenant with many is also an antichrist figure?

Please note: I am not trying to be convinced of the dispensational interpretation I just would like an explanation as to how the apparent inconsistency is resolved or whether the "he" could refer to different persons.

The idea of the cessation of sacrifices in Daniel appears 5 times. Aside from Daniel 9 the references seems to be to Antiochus/Antichrist figure.

(Daniel 7:25) "He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times [of sacrifices] and the laws [of temple observances]. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time."

(Daniel 8:11-14) "It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. … "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the [removal of the] daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"

(Daniel 11:31-32) ""His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him."

(Daniel 12:11) ""From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

In the passages above the reference is always to sacrifices ceasing due to the sinful action of Antiochus/Antichrist figure.

 

[Dordts5]

I am not going to be able to answer your question directly; however, what I am able to clarify is some specifics In regards to some of what you are asking.

In regards to (sic - the) "Antichrist" that many Dispensationalists try to propagate in their eschatology, 1 John explains to us that their are many "antichrists" and he defines what an antichrist is: anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. It is important to remember that John was writing the letter to Christians who had probably heard that gnostic teaching, or warning them of the gnostic teaching. (gnostic is the word I'm wanting to use, isn't it?)

In regard to the prophet Daniel, he was simply prophesying how the Lord would keep the Law in regards to redemption and the forgiveness of sin by the shedding of blood. In His Holy office as Priest He would offer Himself. You know this! What makes the correlation is two other passages of Scripture: Leviticus 21 and Hebrews 9.

Sorry for the short answer, but I'm on 2nd shift and need to get back to work! Hope this helps!

 

[Adam Olive]

Thank you for replying Dallas but that doesn't actually answer my question which is not really about antichrist but rather the apparent discrepancy between the references of sacrifices ceasing due to a rebellious action by an antichrist figure throughout Daniel but then viewing the ceasing of sacrifices in Daniel 9 as a positive act by Christ.

And that is a question I have been waiting a very long time for an answer to

 

[Dordts5]

Ok, I guess what you are asking is something that I can't answer except to say that I don't believe what you're asking is a correct question? It seems you're asking the question based on a supposition, which you believe is correct. Only a person that holds the same supposition is going to be able to answer you're question.

I don't believe Daniel is referring to an Antichrist figure. I believe Daniel is referring "the one who causes desolation". Which in this case would be General Titus of the Roman army when the Romans destroyed the Temple in A.D. 70.

 

[Adam Olive]

By "antichrist figure" I simply mean one who opposes God and/or his people whether Antiochus Epiphanes or Titus or an eschatological figure.

So Dallas you believe that the "he" who causes sacrifice to be put to an end is Titus by his action of destroying the temple rather than Christ causing sacrifice to end through his death upon the cross ... is that correct?

I am not committed to a 'supposition' that Christ is the "he" who ends sacrifice, I just want to know those who do hold that Christ ends sacrifice by his death reconcile that with the fact that elsewhere figures such as Antiochus end sacrifice as a sacriligous act.

 

[bug]

Perhaps it must be noted that the context of Dan 9 is entirely different to the context of the other prophecies of Daniel. The focus of much of Daniel's prophecies are in relation to tribulation of the people of God, however the focus of the prophecy of 70 weeks is purely deliverence, it comes in response to Daniel's prayer of repentence. Exegetically therefore it is unlikely that the sacrifices ceasing are due the work of an antichrist, especially as gramatically it simply cannot be the case.

Quite siomply put my freind, no matter how consistently a term is used elsewhere in the bible, that doesn't always mean it is being used in that way in the text we are cosnidering - that is to buy into the overly (woddenly) rigid literalism of the dispensational believer.

 

[Loopie]

For my two cents, it seems that Daniel 9 is, in an immediate sense pointing to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. He did indeed set up a statue of himself (he viewed himself as a god) in the temple.

I would say though that this prophecy, like other prophecies can have multiple fulfillments. Antiochus was just a type of anti-Christ, and so it would certainly seems that Daniel 9 could also see fulfillment in the future. I also see Titus as another 'type' of fulfillment as well. Certainly when Jesus speaks of Daniel 9, he is referring to a future event that is very much tied to his second coming, which is why I believe there is a future 'complete' fulfillment that we have yet to see.

 

[arapahoepark]

Read EJ Young's commentary on Daniel. It is great and he explains all these questions in more detail.

 

[charispistis]

I agree with Jonathan's comment above. The context is key, and in the case of the 70 weeks it has to be interpreted differently.

 

[Dordts5]

In Daniel 9: 26-27, it is in V. 26 where it states that the Messiah will be "cut off" (suffer the death penalty), that prepares the reader for V. 27. with Christ's cross sacrifice, He brings an end to sacrifice and all other offerings. It is prophecy regarding Christ fulfilling the Mosaic law. The vision of the 70 weeks, is all about Christ.

This is what I guess I was trying to explain about the fulfillment of Lev. 21 and Hebrews 9.

 

[Dordts5]

For my two cents, it seems that Daniel 9 is, in an immediate sense pointing to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanies. He did indeed set up a statue of himself (he viewed himself as a god) in the temple.

I would say though that this prophecy, like other prophecies can have multiple fulfillments. Antiochus was just a type of anti-Christ, and so it would certainly seems that Daniel 9 could also see fulfillment in the future. I also see Titus as another 'type' of fulfillment as well. Certainly when Jesus speaks of Daniel 9, he is referring to a future event that is very much tied to his second coming, which is why I believe there is a future 'complete' fulfillment that we have yet to see.

I do not agree with this supposition. It is a work that Christ fulfilled through his sacrifice and then made abundantly clear through the work of Titus and his Caesar, Nero with the destruction of the Temple. The abomination of desolation is clear in Matthew and Luke is when the temple is destroyed.

Maybe it is a point of agreeing to disagree.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A few years ago, I preached the book of Daniel. Now that in no way makes me an expert on the book; it just means that I thought on it, and taught through it.

So, my opinion is... just my opinion. But it is an "informed" opinion, informed by the text, by context, and by some Reformed commentators whose own opinions I found reliable.

The above comments by "bug" are some with which I am most sympathetic. The words of the angel are an answer to prayer. THE great concern of God's people (the ones who were truly his people-by-faith) was, in OT days, the coming of Messiah, the fulfillment of the Promise. As they are living-the-exile, the future is as murky to them as to anyone, prior to its eventuation. If they look back, they can see in the history of God's dealings with man, some things that look like "false starts" in the plan of redemption. Such "dead ends" did not take God by surprise, indeed they were part of the whole story of HOW God will NOT BE thwarted in his plan, no matter what man and Satan does trying to derail it.

But part of living-by-faith is recognizing that what we think may be the course (even by looking at the prophetic word) has to be submitted to the corrections of Providence. Who would have thought that the whole seed of Abraham could be removed from the land in judgment? Yes, Moses had suggested some such thing could happen (theoretically), but surely the interests of Jehovah in his overarching plan would prevent the worst, right?

And yet, it had happened. And if you have not yet "entered into" an identification with the people-of-God of the OT (the way, for instance, today you may enter into the sufferings of your brothers under anti-Christian tyranny), you probably have not "felt" the full impact of the devastation of being cast off by the God of your fathers.

Daniel, in a way, embodies the Exile, physically by his lifetime and experience. He also is a believer, so he brings to the situation that "remnant's heart," that despite the darkness still hopes in God. He is aided by his study of the words of hope given to Jeremiah, that despite the apparent finality of divine Justice, there ought to be a return after 70 years.

But Daniel also knows that there are usually implied (if not always explicit) "conditions" to God's promises, things related to how men respond to God and how things look "on the ground." And to go back to the land--to recover God's favor and to resume as it were the Messianic hopes tied to the national land-and-life--means that the people must repent.

And, oh dear... its been 70 years, and in terms of the exiled of Judah, it's clear to Daniel that there is no repentance (corporately). So, logically, the hope of return is also put in jeopardy. Hence, the prayer, the plea.

God's answer is more than Daniel asks for. God tells Daniel that yes, He knows the people have not repented, and don't deserve to go back to the land. But he's still going to finish his work of Redemption. He has a timetable (may not "line up" conveniently with a man-made calendar), but there are prophetic "periods" of specific duration, and He's got it all in hand.

If we recognize that this is the the basic thrust of the answer God is giving, then we should not miss the "focus" of the answer is keyed to Messiah's arrival. Judgment and Salvation are mixed together--so mixed that it is next to impossible to fully untangle the thoughts until the NT revelation of Christ Jesus.

For my part, I don't think v27 can be understood as referring to any other than the Christ (mentioned at v26a). I do think that v26b (from "the people of the prince") is in reference to Judgment that is related to the "cutting off of Messiah," and so the rest of that verse is parenthetical to the idea that begins in v26a, and resumes in v27a. And also v27b resumes (in Heb. parallelism) the thoughts of judgment once again, to conclude the passage.


I hope this adds a little to the discussion.

 

[Dordts5]

Thank you for posting that Rev. Buchanan.

 

[Adam Olive]

Hi Bruce,

Thank you for your reply. So I gather that the parallelism you mention is as follows:

(Dan 9:26)

And after the sixty-two weeks,

an anointed one shall be cut off
and shall have nothing.

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

(Dan 9:27)

And he shall make a strong covenant
with many for one week,

and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

Is this the parallelism that you mean?

So would this mean:

(Dan 9:26)

And after the sixty-two weeks,

Jesus shall die on the cross
And the people (the Romans) of the prince who is to come (Titus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (70 A.D.). Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end (until Jesus' return) there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

(Dan 9:27)

And Jesus shall confirm a covenant
with many for one week
(extending to his second coming),
and for half of the week he (Titus) shall put an end to sacrifice and offering (by destroying the temple). And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."


OR

(Dan 9:26)

And after the sixty-two weeks,

Jesus shall die on the cross
And the people of the prince who is to come (the Roman army utilized by the Prince Jesus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (70 A.D.). Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end (until Jesus' return) there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

(Dan 9:27)

And Jesus shall confirm a covenant
with many for one week
(extending to his second coming),
and for half of the week he (Jesus) shall put an end to sacrifice and offering (by destroying the temple). And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

Thoughts?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Adam,

I think that the "judgment" parallel of v27 begins with the "wing of abominations" phrase. So, I think the "end of sacrifice and offering" refers to the cross-work of Christ. He is the once-for-all sacrifice, and so he ends the sacrificial system.

Here's a literalistic rendering of those vv:

26 And after the sevens sixties and two he will be cut off Messiah and nothing to him // and the city and the holy [place] it will destroy people of ruler the coming and end of it with [the] flood and until end war that-which-is-decided [cut/limited/decreed] desolatings

27 And he will make strong covenant to many seven one and one half the seven he will cause to cease sacrifice and offering // and upon wing/edge of abominations desolating one and until complete-finale and that-which-is-decided it will pour out upon desolated ones

Let me make it a tiny bit smoother:

26 And after the sixties and two sevens Messiah will be cut off and nothing to him //
and the city and the holy [place] will people of the coming ruler destroy, and end of it with [the] flood; and until end: war; that-which-is-decided is desolatings.

27 And he will make strong covenant to many for one seven; and one half the seven he will cause to cease sacrifice and offering //
and upon wing/edge of abominations is one desolating; and until complete-finale and that-which-is-decided, it will pour out upon desolated ones.

1) With only one "seven" or prophetic-period remaining (after the 62, which itself was was subsequent to the first 7) Messiah will be cut off (die) and have nothing.
2) Which leads to complete judgment (think "tsunami") upon the city and holy place by the people of the ruler. The end is the bitter end of this conflict for those ruined by it.

3) Thus Messiah comes with regard to the last "seven," to covenant; and partway through (note: his earthly ministry actually lasted about 3.5 yrs) he will bring an end to meaningful sacrifices and offerings (his death accomplishes this, but the reality is obscure until fulfillment)
4) The desolator historically turns out to be Titus. The main thing is that for a second time we are told that the finale is decreed, God has determined this end. I also think the last (participle, I believe) refers to the guilty inhabitants as "the desolated ones."


So, what God tells Daniel is that mercy and judgment will continue to flow down upon the nation-elect. The sifting will not be complete until the Messiah has come and done his work. The nation-elect still has a role to play in his coming; this people and history are no "dead-end" of redemption. But, even as mercy is extended generally (for the sake of the elect), so also judgment is accumulating as well. As bad as the exile was, imagine what worse fate awaits those who still rebel, who will not receive Messiah when he comes, but instead participate in his being cut off, in order (so far as they will have it) to leave him with nothing.

In other words, one thing God clearly indicates to Daniel is that the lack of repentance characterizing the people after the 70 years of trial will have some lingering presence as well all through the "probation" years that follow. Nothing is said about how many or what percentage of the people/leaders will continue to reject correction, and fail to acknowledge the undeserved mercies of God that keep them from being utterly consumed. Only that such persons will still be present down to the very time of Messiah; and a terrible desolation awaits them.

But of course, in the midst of all this horror of judgment is that mysterious but also comforting language of the Messiah's triumph. How can all these seemingly incompatible things be true simultaneously? God doesn't write his story so that the parts to come are easily intuited before they happen. "Angels long to look into these things." God only gives to his prophets--and from them to his people--his word of promise. "Believers, hope in me, and in these words, and see how I make it all come about."

Later chs. in Daniel reveal a bit more about the days in between the exile and Messiah. The crucial fact of those days regarding the nation-elect is that those continue to be days of indignation (see Dan.8:19; 11:36). The days of grace are Messiah's days, endless days of resurrection life for God's people.


Hope this is helpful.

 

[Adam Olive]

Bruce that is a helpful explanation of your position and one which I find myself essentially in agreement with regarding your theological emphasis within the passage.

What I still find hard to get my head around is how the ending of sacrifice is a positive action in Daniel 9 by Christ whereas consistently in Daniel it appears to be a negative oppositional and defiant action toward God by e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes. Any help on that issue?

 

[Loopie]

Bruce, thanks for the awesome explanation. I very much enjoyed hearing your insights. Like Adam Olive, I too am uncertain as to how Antiochus Epiphanes plays a part in this. Is he completely irrelevant, or does he somehow point towards a future desolation caused by Titus? Is Antiochus just an image or 'type' of abomination?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Adam,
Some thoughts:

1) I think Heb.9:25-28 has significant bearing on our interpretation of Dan.9:27. In other words, how the Holy Spirit employs a theme, or may expand on an earlier statement, should actually make us think about the original statement, and ask whether we can see it bearing the weight of that later development. Taken on its own merits, a self-contained prophecy, Dan.9:20-27 (in the context of the whole ch.) doesn't compel the interpretation of the pertinent phraseology in terms of oppositional/defiant behavior, in my view.

2) I also don't see significant precise parallels in Daniel's language over the several passages you cited in the OP; which precision is of greater weight if using it to determine whether the author means to put the reader in mind of the same essential idea. That is, variety of terms can be an indicator that a writer is using different means to convey one basic idea; or such use may indicate the existence of a deeper theme, that has expression in more than one subject. I'm inclined to the latter in this case.

3) The removal of particular religious observance is the kind of event that is open to more than one interpretation. The operative question is "why"? A well known example (that is sometimes embellished in story form) is the stranger who jams a ball-point pen into another man's chest, while another stranger holds the victim down. Is it an attack by prison inmates? Or is it a doctor trying to save an accident victim lying on the street with a punctured lung? The writer of a detective novel, who may also have EMT training, could use both events in his story in order to exploit the interesting juxtaposition, as well as put his own knowledge of the human body and of injuries to service of his literary craft.


4) Particular texts:

7:25. Not really a parallel at all. Reference to halted sacrifice (specific) must be imported from elsewhere to get that interpretation. In fact, there is little indication here that the actor is successful in "changing times [zeman] and law [dath]" (general) he attempts. And, I think the fourth beast (vv7-8, 23-27) begins with Rome, and therefore the specific attacker cannot refer to Antiochus; indeed the boastful horn is some end-time actor, in my view.

8:11,12. The "daily" [altar service, presumably] is removed. Precise parallel term is missing; tameed, rather than zebach or minchah (9:27); "taken away"(rum) rather than "made to cease" (shabat) This opposer needs an army to enforce his temporary ban; whereas the army of 9:26 obliterates the city and the sanctuary. I see no obvious correlation between the 2300 "evening-mornings" (8:14), and the final "seven" (9:27).

11:31. Precise parallel can be found with 8:11,12 re. the "daily," which along with other elements puts those two visions together at this point, but not with ch.9. The "abomination of desolation" is a precise parallel to ch.9, but this term is simply descriptive, and may be applied to a variety of circumstances of like condition; so, use of the phrase doesn't constrain our understanding of other terms in the passage.

12:11. Again, "daily" is the precise parallel term to chs.8 & 11, along with "abomination of desolation" and "taken away" (sur). Now, I happen to think that this vision, as the final and culminating text of the book, brings ideas together from elsewhere in Daniel. I understand this reference to be connected to 9:24-27 much more than to chs.8 & 11.​

So, what I find is that there are two different kinds of taking-away or causing-to-cease of sacrifice that Daniel speaks of. Ignoring 7:25 as basically irrelevant to the discussion, that leaves chs.8 & 11 on one side, and chs.9 & 12 on the other, so far as the general reference to the end of sacrifices goes.

What that means (assuming for the moment that I'm right) is that the references are basically evenly split between the two possibilities. In which case, there would be no preponderance toward the negative, which seems to be your present contention.

Blessings,

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I too am uncertain as to how Antiochus Epiphanes plays a part in this. Is he completely irrelevant, or does he somehow point towards a future desolation caused by Titus? Is Antiochus just an image or 'type' of abomination?

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (the second name identifies one man from several named Antiochus, as does the numerical designation) does play a role in the prophetic word of Daniel. He is the most obvious figure answering a description for one in the period foretold in chs.8 & 11.

His attacks upon the Jews were harbingers or types of future wrath, but there is mixed in encouragement to the remnant to hold fast to their faith (11:32,35; 12:2). Titus' desolation was definitive--even as we bear in mind that the end of the Old Covenant age, in which some are finally destroyed while members of the remnant move safely into the New Covenant age, that end is a sign pointing to the end of this world. Jesus told his followers to recall the words of Daniel, Mt.24:15, regarding the coming destruction (whichever moment the reader may think Christ refers).

In the very end of this world, the judgment will not be limited to a particular people, but to the whole human race.